Friday, January 23, 2009

Black Triangles

[updated x 2] Between the occasional inaguration and not a few meetings, it was a crazy week and so much to blog about. But it's Friday, I'm tired, so all I gots right now is Black Triangles.

All the dev team had after month of effort was a black triangle on a screen...but it was more than that.

Afterwards, we came to refer to certain types of accomplishments as "black triangles." These are important accomplishments that take a lot of effort to achieve, but upon completion you don't have much to show for it -- only that more work can now proceed. It takes someone who really knows the guts of what you are doing to appreciate a black triangle.

When working on complex projects, the black triangle moment is always the high point for me; it's when success occurs. Before you've got a framework built, there's significant doubt about how the project will turn out, if can even be done. After you get that first little result through the whole maze and it's clear how the whole thing will work, the rest becomes almost inevitable. (via migurski)

Truth spoken well, stolen verbatim, from Jason Kottke.

[update]Okay, I'm feeling guilty about the lifted post so let's at least add something to the mix: a mash-up from work in progress. Jason and others might identify with this, especially the hi-lited bit, and I suspect Johnnie Moore will not. Doesn't matter. It's not for them. It's to explain the difference between tigers and horses and dogs to those who have difficulty making the distinction.



[update some more 01-25-09] Got a facebook msg/question on this. The 4 cycles idea is from experience, and from conversations with people around the question of what makes people naturally comfy with change and others not. Handy stuff to be aware of if you're in the change/challenge status quo business. Maybe I should be less flip and explain better in a post. I'll link to it when it's done.

Labels: , , , ,

Friday, January 16, 2009

The Gig Economy - The New American Hustler

Tina Brown of The Daily Beast wakes up
Now that everyone has a project-to-project freelance career, everyone is a hustler.

No one I know has a job anymore. They've got Gigs.

Gigs: a bunch of free-floating projects, consultancies, and part-time bits and pieces they try and stitch together to make what they refer to wryly as “the Nut”—the sum that allows them to hang on to the apartment, the health-care policy, the baby sitter, and the school fees.

....

A full one-third of our respondents are now working either freelance or in two jobs. And nearly one in two of them report taking on additional positions during the last six months.

Just as startling, these new alternative workers are not overwhelmingly low-income. They’re college-educated Americans who earn more than $75,000 a year.

Welcome to the age of Gigonomics...

There is a real poll: PDF

And a synopsis:

There are two kinds of new American hustlers:

At the lower end of the salary spectrum, lower- and middle-class Americans are being stretched in ways they didn’t seek. Americans with incomes below $40,000 per year are more likely to hold multiple part-time positions, and the reason why they hold second jobs tends to be a critical financial situation: They’re behind on bills and need extra income (43%).

At the top end, those with higher incomes and a college education are more likely to work freelance or multiple jobs as a way of expanding their scope. This upper-class population often has both a full-time job in addition to one or more part-time jobs, often freelancing. The top motivation for taking on additional work? A second job was actually a hobby that turned into a money-making operation (48%). Not surprisingly, this group is also more likely to feel stretched by their responsibilities.

Yup. Long after Unicornomics* has been settled on as a huge distraction and waste of talent and resources, there's still gonna be rasslin' over what to call the last 3 decades starting with Reaganomics and ending in Gig-o-nomics. Somehow, despite the indelible imprint of B. Boomer on the registration and paperwork, calling them the The Wonder Years 2.0 seems a longshot.

And, maybe, just maybe, there's an explanation within, and tying together, both sets of years.

----
* Q: How do you buy a unicorn? A: With imaginary money. Q: How do you buy 2 unicorns? A: Declare the first unicorn and the rides you give as an asset and revenue stream for your CapitalOne card application.
daily beast link via fimoculous

Labels: , , , ,

Friday, January 09, 2009

LandAmerica. From Sea to shining C-minus

Then on to BBB-minus, ending with an "F." Come on boys and girls, Fortune 500 companies are hard to come by and nice to have around. Richmond Times-Dispatch, today:

The chairman and chief executive of the bankrupt LandAmerica Financial Group Inc. is stepping down and the Henrico County-based company will sell its remaining business units, it said today.

...

What was once a top employer in the Richmond area and won "most admired" recognition from Fortune magazine for the past two years filed for Chapter 11 protection Nov. 26.

The Dirt Lawyer (a Chicago commercial real estate attorney who's worth keeping up with) gave us the name of the poison in November.

The skinny? LandAm apparently had a toxic exchange subsidiary that invested about $290 million in auction rate securities that may take forever to get rid of. And you need to access that money to faciliate the exchanges. In short? Liquidity crisis.

Yeah, something's all wet. Or maybe too cut and dry? Saying "liquidity crisis," as so many are, is like blaming the fork for your high cholesterol level. A quick Google offers us (via a Deloitte management guy no less) something [from 2006] that might be viewed as irony, what with all this gate-keepered "sudden news":

Fortune 500 blog project: #500 LandAmerica needs blogs

Oct 23, 2006 ... I love your explanation of why LandAmerica needs a blog (or multiple blogs!). I' ve said the same thing over and over of several blogless ...
it.toolbox.com/blogs/blogpotato/fortune-500-blog-project-500-landamerica-needs-blogs-12452 - 66k - Cached - Similar pages -
Come on Genworth, we're rooting for you!

Labels: , , , , , ,

Tuesday, December 09, 2008

Diller: Beating (Wall Street's) expectation of earnings is yesterday's game

Reuters Media Summit
Barry Diller: “It’s not that you don’t want to earn as much money as you can — it is your obligation, of course — but companies have obligations beyond that and they certainly have obligations beyond that at certain times, in the times in which they operate. And they also certainly ought to know that meeting and beating expectations is probably yesterday’s game and it will be increasingly so, which would be by the way very healthy for companies. Running a company that meets and beats expectations, and that runs their company accordingly, are companies that I would question why anyone would invest in.”
Here's a quick clips of Diller saying the above.



This second clip has Diller parsing the utility of saving 20, 30 or 40 million dollars (about what many job cuts aim for at mid-cap sized orgs) in a year "when nobody's counting."



I don't know what Diller's positions have been in the past when QVC or other outfits he's run have encountered the fainting spells of Wall Street analysts agog over his quarterly numbers. My guess is he's less than pure on this front if he's a pure-bred American CEO. Regardless, there's a whole bunch of epiphanies happening out there.

No doubt, much of what's coming to pass is thanks to the damaging effect of a singular idea of the last 30 years, when the spadework of doing, as our parents did, became unsexy and unfulfilling: Profit became "the product"--The Moonshot--of many companies and the near-myopic focus of many leaders and our network of value-measuring and dictating institutions. Any sense of the power of work--and profit as meaningful proof of any work's worth--long since went out the window as a passe mark of the goofy or unsophisticated person. Well, reality is back in vogue and, let's hope, not too late.

###

This reminds me of something from Shalom Schwartz and Amir Licht that's useful as an executive measure when pondering corporate governance and direction. I'll dig it up and post something on it later.

Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, October 02, 2008

Unicornomics - Thomas Frank gets it, Andrew Sullivan does not.

Thomas Frank, for the Wall Street Journal no less...

I asked Bill Black, a professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City and an authority on the Savings and Loan debacle of the 1980s, what he thought of the latest blame offensive. He pointed out that, for all their failings, Fannie and Freddie didn't originate any of the bad loans -- that disastrous piece of work was done by purely private, largely unregulated companies, which did it for the usual bubble-logic reason: to make a quick buck.

Most of the mistakes for which we are paying now, Mr. Black told me, were actually made "by four entities that under conservative economic theory should have exercised effective market discipline -- the appraisers, the originators of the mortgages, the rating agencies, and the investment banking firms that packaged the subprime mortgage-backed securities." Instead of "disciplining" the markets, these private actors "served as the four horsemen of the financial apocalypse, aiding the accounting fraud and inflating the housing bubble." It is they, Mr. Black says, who "turned a crisis into a catastrophe."

...

There is no way to measure the number of people who took out mortgages they knew they couldn’t afford, of course, but for what it’s worth, a 2007 report by the Mortgage Bankers Association reports that the FBI estimates “80 percent of all reported fraud losses arise from fraud for profit schemes that involve industry insiders.” That means the lenders, not the borrowers.

Just imagine the flights of fancy that the theory of borrower malevolence and Wall Street victimization requires conservatives to take: All these no-account folks, you see, got together and forced investment banks to engineer subprime mortgages into highly leveraged securities. Then they tricked all manner of hedge funds and pension funds and financial institutions into buying these lousy products. Just for good measure, these struggling homeowners then persuaded bond-rating agencies to misrepresent the risk associated with these securities.

Indeedy. And now, our patient, Andrew Sullivan, taking one of those flights of fancy, except it's really more a noisy tumble down a flight of stairs.

Andrew Sullivan

Finally, George Will puts in a column what I said on Bill Maher. Much if this crisis stems from rank greed and irresponsibility from ordinary Americans on a massive scale, who bought homes they couldn't afford on credit they couldn't repay, or who leveraged their property with loans they had no reason to take out. If this crisis hits Main Street hard, it will also hit a great number of people who also deserve their comeuppance. We need a fix to solve the credit problem. I understand that. But a little delay is important and salutary. And the real, long term fix requires weaning Americans off credit - and giving enough of them a taste of what their greed and recklessness can do.

Gracious me!

Does Sullivan realize the above is actually an indictment of a raft of sacrosanct conservative principles dating back 25 years? Hell, it's an indictment of modern consumer societies. What's more, he misses the actual culprit: Soullessness. That is is surprising given his "expertise" on the subject: The Conservative Soul: How We Lost It, How to Get It Back by Andrew Sullivan.

The last 30+ years of American growth have been predicated on revolving credit, medium-term loans for autos and durables and, yeah, the boutique products of Unicornomics like credit-swaps and various derivatives-based cleverness. AKA: you CAN have it now! That greed is the culprit goes without saying. What Sullivan and others just can't get their heads around is that we keep seeing this movie over and over. It always ends badly, predictably, and Andrew wants us to believe it's the audience's fault the movie got made because, well, because they bought tickets to the spectacle.

Later today, we'll take a look at things through the prism of William James and maybe through that of accidental behavioral economist, Otto Rank...

I mentioned the other today how ticked off I was to hear Republicans say that the Community Reinvestment Act was to blame. Well, I knew CRA. I worked with CRA. I marketed CRA alongside high wealth products. And, umm, Andrew, Rush, et al? This is no CRA probem.




Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, October 01, 2008

Unicornomics vs. Mark-to-Market

Barry Ritholz @ the big picture gives us the halftone dots re: mark-to-market and touches on the real bugaboo of bullshit mark-to-model pie in the sky valuation...

That is one of the key elements of the current situation. A decision was made to bypass the broad, deeply traded traditional markets (Equities, Fixed Income, Commodities and Currency) and instead create new markets for new products. No one should be surprised that the net result was a flawed system of garbage paper, with too little room at the exits in case of emergency.

Let's puts this into some context:

"Accounting is a way of portioning economic results by time periods. It doesn’t affect the cash flows, but tries to allocate economic profits proportional to release from risk. If we were back in an era where the financial instruments were simple, then the old rules would work. But once you introduce derivatives, and securities that are called bonds, but are more akin to equity interests, you need to mark them to market."

-David Merkel

Exactly. Otherwise, you are left with public companies, who have made capital allocation and investment decisions that are hidden from their owners (shareholders) and the investing public.

Now that the garbage is on the books, no one wants to admit the original error of purchasing this class of assets. Its not just that the trade has gone bad, its the original buying decision was so flawed even if the trades were not such giant losers.

Labels: , , , ,

Monday, September 29, 2008

Fear and Greed or Hope and Seriousness. Today's the day.

Well, we just dipped 700+ points, faster than a feather tied to an anvil, in increments of 10 and 15 and 20.

The folks who've stood on their soapbox for years now--the conservatives, of both parties--bemoaning awful intrusions on the free market are now stuck. The laissez faire free market got us here, and now, as paid-for shills of psychedelic finance, they have no answers. None. Nada. Bupkis.

The cruel joke is a joke, one my older brother told me years ago in the midst of the last Gekko-like, junk-finance age gripping London as in New York: What happened to all the hippies? They're stockbrokers too, they just don't wear underwear.

"If it feels good, do it." It fits the times now as it did then. Remember that, and today, the next time someone makes a joke about hippies. Maybe ask them if it's cheaper for an unemployed investment banker to fill up a Range Rover or a Microbus?

On to today's business, the worst DOW point drop in US history. Proof that railing against evolution is a niche concern compared to the many who want to deny fiscal gravity. And, oh joy, my congressman, Eric Cantor, wants to cry that Nancy Pelosi hurt his feelings after his party's obtuseness and obstructionism today; called him out on the unhappy ending of his ideology's fairy tale. Impossible, I know, Eric, but grow up.

The bottom line, congresspeople, is you're screwed if you do, and we're screwed if you don't.

The bottom line, voters for said congress-people, is that the fairy tales reanimated since Reagan are now a box. It finds you worried about payroll and receivables and yet also makes you send calls and emails to Washington DC, 100 to 1 against calming the world's markets. The antidote, thanks to laissez faire procrastination, is anti- everything that so many supposedly "stand for." Well, there's nothing laissez faire nor Invisible Hand about the need for a heart needle or a crash cart and some paddles.

No, it's not fair that taxpayers are gonna have to be the grownups and bail Junior and Cissy Smitherington-Farqhuar out of jail. You didn't ask for this, but you ordained it.

As others much smarter than me are coming to realize, this is a crisis of a now non-operational ideology more than one of finance. The Freeze of Credit is a consequence of this failure, not cause. Trust is dead. And Greed is the fickle new bastard-son King.

Many are saying they can't "aid and abet American Socialism." Newsflash: You've been doing that for years. When you allow private sectors and their industry lobbyists to write laws in their profitable favor, such as the repeal, with Gramm-Leach-Bliley, of major solvency safeguards in Glass Steagall--itself a result of the hard lessons of 1929, you are explitly socializing risk--laying bare a swath of the economy to unfettered myopia and mugging called the Crisis of the Commons.

And when you firewall consumers/voters from remedies for their own small financial crises--either from foolishness or, far more statisitically likely, from bankruptcy due to crushing catastrophic healthcare debt--well, what you do there is a weirder, crueler perverse and un-American version of Socialism called Corporatism. The fruits of their PowerPoints™ and K Street working lunches? The 2005 Bankrupcty Bill, more accurately labelled the Financial Services Foolishness and Greed Do-over Act.

Voting for that pre-emptive bailout bill were 229 Republicans and 73 Democrats. Opposing were 125 Democrats and one independent, Vermont's Bernard Sanders. Ironic that the Congress' one socialist voted against a unique form of Corporate Socialism. Maybe he wasn't paying attention.

That Act was explicitly written NOT because Wall Street or Hartford was stupid. On the contrary, they knew exactly how far they were leaning over the edge on their exposure and risk-models. And they wanted a safety net for the crap--dodgy mortgages, credit cards, auto loans--they knew they were peddling to keep their quarterly numbers botox-pretty. That was Phase One. Paulson's and Bernanke's POS cash-grab first offering last week was Phase Two.

They knew today was very likely coming, and they gambled that since nobody knew for sure--that since no one could offer dead solid perfect proof trhat derivative WEREN'T magic--they'd keep moving forward with their fantastical Unicornomics. They'd dig their spurs in and shout "What's in your wallet?" or "Better call DiTech!"



But the CGI special effects in those crap commercials isn't the only technological advance. The creep of IT also brought "super-genius" powers of "knowing things." A big-shot financial services executive once described it to me as, "the ability to see around corners!" "Yes," I asked, "but can you bend light?" He didn't get my sarcasm. "Soon!" he said, "Soon!" he said.

It's not news to many, I'm sure, that this silicon-augmented power tends to make you at first awed, then confident, then embarrassingly, arrogantly ignorant of your vulnerability. They knew that their vast databases and instantaneous tracking thanks to tech advances meant they could "monitor" known iffy credit risks at point-of-purchase right up to the line of "yes" or "no" on a half tank of gas or a full one. That these risks (some call them people) were living paycheck to paycheck in an increasingly shock-prone economy was 'backstopped' by the program "to reduce the downside."

And there was Joe Dokes, taunted to "Go for it!" by ads made by guys like me. Get that HELOC or 3rd refi -- shop till you drop and to Flip This House! The fees, the fine print, the floating nebulous and changeable rules of their contract with us were all designed to render the "customer" into a commodity to be squeezed, harvested, pandered-to. Until it wasn't useful to do so anymore. It's a weird existence living in the parallel universe of pretend public care (Customer Advocacy™) and jeering private disdain.

Except now, the disdain is leaking out.

These are folks--parallel in their desires to Wall Street's appetites, much more limited in their means--that suddenly Big C conservatives are calling crass, greedy, irresponsible consumers. They just followed the program. Told to "go shopping," post 9-11, they're "un-American" dolts today. Or, and this gets my viens popping, Talk Radio clowns are now suddenly trying to float the minority and low income beneficiaries of Community Reinvestment Act loans as the cause of Fannie and Freddie's downfall, and the broader market's collapse. That talk-radio meme, the machine gun nature of pre-emptive blame spraying is tear-inducing and rampage-making, and I can't decide which has more general utility.

Back to today, to the sudden crisis of philosophy due to a failure of that philosophy. A vote failed, the market tanked. It clawed back, then it tanked some more. Maybe that will shock some out of their pantomime. Somehow I think that those who weren't so concerned in 2005 about the solvency and resilience of the average family's economy will betray their Harlequin Romance view of Adam Smith to prop up the American Exceptionalism™ of our wheezing National Economy.

In the end, philosophy be damned. The vote will be made in favor of unfreezing liquidity, because Arthur Jensen wants it.

Labels: , , , ,

Friday, September 26, 2008

The question nodody asks: Why is Credit Frozen?

A few days ago I posted that this is a crisis of ideology not finance. That was not fully clear. The Credit Collapse is a symptom of an organ failing, a part an organism that has been bingeing because it's been told it can do no wrong, no harm can come to it if it pursues it's desire for pure self-interest. Some call this consumerism. Some call it the American Dream--life, liberty and all that.

How'd this discrepancy happen? Well, absent grownups to remind me that things that go up invariably come down, I tend to get used to the idea that things going up will always do so. These absent grown-ups? They, or it, would be called functional, diligent oversight. Or the belief in it.

To me, this isn't about liquidity per se but rather, about the reality of reality itself catching up to the mark-to-model and mark-to-market methods of financial services of the last few decades. (Mark to model is the theoretical accounting of Enron and other recent flameouts--basically rosy scenarios on crack.)

Sounds complicated? Most of the blameworthy would like us to think so. Let's try and clarify.

Look at it this way, from their perspective: IF YOU'VE been selling smoke and confusing ponzi schemes for years you start to worry that too MANY OTHERS are doing the same and suddenly if only types like you are available to deal with--in a market ostensibly reliant on trust and sentiment--well, then, MAYBE NOBODY's TRUSTWORTHY and the best thing to do is reset and take a mulligan. Or, to continue the golf parlance, to turn in your card and self-disqualify.

But no one in positions of responsibility is willing to do that latter thing, to banish themselves as the abject giddy and greedy failures they have been. They have PhDs in Economics and Finance, after all. They write the fine print!

And that's where we are - top tier banks and investment houses doubled down serially, and so often, that everybody's bluffed out and faithless. Nobody trusts anybody, and everybody's in flopsweat. And when the titans start sweating, and conserving any capital they have "just in case," we mere mortals feel it shower as a gear-rusting, road-blocking downpour that shorts out our ability to do day-to-day business. That, in my goofy metaphor-drenched opinion, is where we are.

That the market is choking off "liquidity"--cashflow and credit flow--is a symptom of its overdue diagnosis: too much play, too many lies, too little seriousness.

The problem is limbic and fundamental. Stop lying, stop avoiding responsibility, stop hiding behind the cleverness; it's over. Admit the failure you knew was coming long ago, and that which is still half-hidden under the rug. Take your medicine is what the market is saying. And also, what the public thinks ought to happen - "I get no pass, no bailout for stupid greedy choices." That would be the way, in a truly free market, death and destruction a la Lehman, IndyMac Bank etc and so on.

But it isn't. Their best answer to an anxious and desperately curious electorate could be construed so far as: Flounder, you fucked up. You trusted us.

Can I ramble some more in search of some clarity?

We have something like 45 trillion of US home ownership paper, maybe 15% added in the last 10 years, that are potentially, really worth 30 trillion in a true free market. Underlaying this are myrid financial instruments, an alphabet soup of insurances, derivatives, IOUs and promissory notes, worth tens of trillions more, and few of which can be reliably valued in a world with laws of actual financial gravity.

This soup, then, is as much if not more of the worry that Fed Chief Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Paulson used to most likely drain the blood from the faces of Congressional leaders over a week ago. And so consists the huge discrepancy borne of wishful thinking and a culture desperately told that having more means you are more meaningful. I believe Bush quaintly called it "An Ownership Society" not long after he told us the patriotic thing to do was "go shopping" after 9/11.

In this environment, the market is not so much free as it open to the highest bidder, virtue and values not being a requirement. The resulting "market" is one jiggered by various narrow interests and by functions convinced through the lure of fees to go along with the asset inflation and reindeer gamers.

What Interests? Whose Functions? A bunch. Such as...

* Such as ordinary local home appraisers all the way up to big-ticket national debt ratings agencies like Moody's, Fitch, S&P and others. Some in the bag, some not, with the nots struggling against the tide.

* Such as regulatory agencies staffed at the executive level with anti-regulatory ideologues, believers in the virtues, and fantasy, of Free Market wisdom. Yes, political appointees, mostly conservative due to who's in the White House these 8 years, and almost all necessarily hewing the party line: HANDS OFF, whenever possible.

* Such as too clever by half Wall Street theorists known as quants delivering to their bosses new, arcane and faith-based methods to do what those CEO bosses are hired to do: Make lots of money for shareholders. That they were exotic and barely understood mattered not. At the end of a blackboard long equation, like that at right, was a big $ sign with several !s next to it. "Say no more Boys and Girls, make it so!" said the bosses.

• Such as mayors and building trades desiring two intertwined things: Jobs and building permits. Both public and private sector glommed onto the fact that all kinds of goodies bloomed from a structures-based boom comparable to the telco/internet booms of the 90s. Manufacturing had long since been packing up for destinations Latin and Asian. No jobs there. However, building retail shops and big boxes and homes and suburbs and all that 2nd and 3rd level economic activity that came with them was like a mirror of the 50's Levittown postwar surge. Manna from heaven for car dealers to Applebees' to Hollister.

* Lastly, such as homeowners themselves--also called Mortgage product consumers. Many had homes prior to this mess, homes with lots of equity. Some were newer homeowners--consumers--getting their piece of the dream thanks to newly 'friendly' bankers who before might have shooed them out of their office. Each of these crudely described demographics are part of the "Shopping as Patriotism" culture referenced above. For the 'house-rich", all that equity could be viewed as an ATM. HELOCs (Home Equity Lines of Credit) became that ATM device. Some got patios to add value to the underlying asset. Many bought plasma screens or took a cruise. This was obviously all well and good when, like Wall Street, they trusted that their ONE Dollar of investment was really worth FIVE today, because home prices were skyrocketing and that dollar in the not so distant future (so they were told, or wanted to believe) would be worth TWENTY in almost no time at all.

And then home prices in far flung suburbs got two successive shocks: 1. The housing market had climbed to saturation. Home Buyers--also known as Mortgage Customers--started by by 2005-6 to be harder to find. And when that happens, you do what? You dig closer to the bottom of the creditworthiness barrel to keep the graph moving up and to to the right. 2. Prices on hydrocarbon fuels started climbing--gasoline, to natural gas to heating oil. It cost more to get places from those newly built and bought houses. It cost more to get the materials to those building sites. Anything petroleum-based like plastics, cladding, vapor barriers and roofing started climbing. Hell, Tupperware was getting more expensive.

And the thing that stopped climbing was the dreamed of ONE to FIVE to TWENTY. The ATM didn't work anymore if it hadn't already been tapped out. Maybe this is obvious to readers and others. It seems, though, not so evident how it all fits together to many I speak with between 9 to 5. When credit card debt, another aspect of our recent fun-fest is added to the mix (how many apps in the mail have you gotten in the last 10 years? what's in your wallet?), well, it becomes easy to see how easy credit afflicted and addicted both the Titans of Wall Street and the merely mortal. Each has played fantastical games of head-in-sand in pursuit of the ultimate market bubble, one perfectly suited to an age of hyper-real experience-seeking and of lives lived virtually: Call it Unicornomics.

Q: How do you buy a unicorn? A: With imaginary money.
Q: How do you buy 2 unicorns? A: Declare the first unicorn and the rides you give as an asset and revenue stream for your CapitalOne card application.

That, unfunny as it is, for me, explains where we are. It doesn't make sense, but it didn't have to be so if people in positions of responsibility didn't abandon their integrity. Now those people want our help as taxpayers, because we have the only pockets collectively even close to deep enough to rescue them from their folly. Did we play along? Yes, we did. Did somebody wonder "where is all this easy money coming from?" Some did, some didn't, but very few buyers of those plasma screens or Palladian mini-mansions wanted to look a gift-unicorn in the mouth. And very few carpenters or lawn services or auto-detailers complained sincerely of too much business.

And it was fun, while it lasted, eh?

Well, this may suck, but it is time to pay. And because it sucks, in differing degrees and varieties, many refuse to step up without some clarity...

Joe on the Street thinks: This sucks because it's more of the same--free market, sink or swim for me, and parachutes, pontoon party boats and do-overs for those who claim to have the right stuff.

Doctrinaire Conservatives: This sucks because government sucks. It has to suck, and to be awful at everything or my reason for living and my guiding stars are gone. Sucks because we have no answers beyond more deregulation. And yes, even though it's a 40 Trillion unregulated Credit Derivatives shadow economy that's at fault here, more deregulation and reducing capital gains for exactly these players is the ONLY solution here.

Republicans: This sucks because Business guys are the Pros from Dover, right? They know and see all! Sucks because we've spent 20 years admiring and defending these Money Types and flying on their jets and playing golf with them and, dammit, they never once said what they did was sorta like my day job - making shit up and selling knee-jerk perceptions, not product.

And there we are. Fine Americans abused by the beatitudes of our tales of woe and wonder, each right and wrong.

But only one has the pull to do this thing.

As unjust as it seems, it IS time for taxpayers to come to the rescue. Because only they collectively can finance this fix of financial and political malpractice. To do it in a way that doesn't offend our sense of justice or capitalism. That means equity for bailouts. It means no pay for non-performance. It means reasonable rules replacing the fairy tales of deregulation that got us here. It means an explanation and an apology of some sort from somewhere and from some people who should have--and did--know better.

And even if that unlikely apology is forthcoming, for God's sake, exact righteous vengeance at the ballot box next month. But do it for reasons that will do you, do us all, some good. Know who's been selling you a bill of goods based upon a thing you know but were willing to overlook: There's no such thing as unicorns, or a free lunch. Ask why cops are seen, and encouraged, in a Farmers Market but virtually banished from our Credit Markets? Ask how government grows more, and also more useless-feckless, under "small government" boosters? Ask why your kids' bill for your choices, the national debt, has ballooned so ridiculously? Ask, are my ideas really sound when I rail against this party or that? Is tax and spend or borrow and spend the model you choose? Is law and order a thing for urbanites of various colors but something unnecessary for people wearing pinstripes and Rotary Club pins? Ask for useful explanations. And vote accordingly

If there is one thing that all of us need, it is explanations beyond spooky and cloudy requests for 700,000,000,000-plus checks.

Now is the time to explain this--Barney, Nancy, Harry, Hank, Ben, Warren, John, Barack, somebody--just as FDR did in his fireside chats weekly through the Great Depression to a bewildered and beat population.

As we have just seen, George W. Bush is woefully equipped to do the job.

That he is the first MBA president is both hysterically funny and metaphysically cruel.

And yes, God bless America. We're gonna need him.

Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

The Crisis is Ideological not Financial

I'm working on a fouro-style daisycutter on why the bailout is more about forgiving stupid moves by still-solvent companies before the election and new agendas take hold. And how easy credit was easily seen as a poison steroid pill, enabled by unreasonable expectations of corporate growth. Later on that.

It's obvious already via Paulson on Capitol Hill that the rush-job is just a copy of the Patriot Act and Homeland Security 'gotta do it' power grabs that have little to do with democracy or actual problem solving-- so let's hope the Congress-critters keep their new-found spines.

The nut of where things are: As Sam Zell noted just now (4:19) on CNBC: " in many cases the borrowers shouldn't have borrowed and the lenders shouldn't have lent." Good--no, excellent--point. And yeah, this isn't about liquidity but rather, about the reality of reality itself catching up to the mark-to-model methods of financial services of the last few decades. Look at it this way: if you've been selling smoke and confusing ponzi schemes for years you start to worry that too many others are doing the same and suddenly if only types like you are available to deal with--in a market ostensibly reliant on trust and sentiment--well, then, maybe nobody's trustworthy and the best thing to do is reset and take a mulligan. And by god, do it before some new Democrat president gets to commit that available money elsewhere to useless stuff like, say, infrastructure rebuilding or Apollo-style energy R&D plans.

A 700 billion to 2 trillion mulligan. Easily. Except if you're a homeowner who's been watching too much Flip This House instead of the other, similarly, fantastical shows like Squawk Box.

It's about deleveraging real values from pretend booked asset values, not about liquidity or some unforeseen calamity.
Fratto insisted that the plan was not slapped together and had been drawn up as a contingency over previous months and weeks by administration officials. He acknowledged lawmakers were getting only days to peruse it, but he said this should be enough. [bold mine]
A simple phrase that needs to be heard more from one candidate is "no pay, no relief for non-performance" and that applies to CEOs or Shareholders. And, yes, to the truly greedy home-equity-as-ATM mortgagees, too.

But let's remember to differentiate the greedy from the truly dumb/unfortunate in the majority of troubled mortagages--the ones who did what most of us do--"It's the usual paperwork legalese, just sign next to these 12 red paste-on plastic tabs and here's your bottle of champagne!"

Right now, Maria Bartiromo is trying, loudly and stridently, again on CNBC to sell that this is a liquidity problem, that firms can't raise capital. WRONG. The money is there, it's access to capital that's choked due to the glut of lies. Trust is broken and 700 billion won't miraculously make saints out of sinners. The saying is "It's only a principle if it costs you something." These companies want to preserve/recover their asset values and their balance sheets without admitting that their principals and staff abandoned, or never had, sustainable principles.

The market is choking "liquidity"--cashflow and credit flow--as a symptom of its overdue diagnosis: too much play, too many lies, too little seriousness. The problem is limbic and fundamental. Stop lying, stop avoiding responsibility, stop hiding behind the cleverness; it's over. Admit the failure you knew was coming long ago, and that which is still half under the rug. Take your medicine like a real frontiersman not a kid in a Roy Rogers outfit from WalMart.

The lower half of Manhattan is now discussing the "awful" impact of losing several 10s of thousands of Financial Services jobs. Guess what? Job losses are what Wall Street has viewed as prudent responses for failed business plans and models for years. And for good models too: They happily make companies like Costco suffer for viewing quality pay and job security as weaknesses.

The fans of deregulation and dismissers of government suddenly want it to make the booboos not hurt so much and for us to play cop and arrest and fine the market that bit them so badly. In the face of all evidence, they want us to call a self inflicted wound some kind of mugging. And to refashion reality and call their dramatically failed ideological war on spadework, physical worth, and accountability just a failure of financial markets.

Bullshit. Grow up.

Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Attack of the 50-foot Negro

Steve Benen at The Carpetbagger Report has a bit on how the narrative against Obama has devolved to it's ultimate Hollywood-Kryptonite form: He's a Commie-Socialist-Pinko. From Mars.

Benen rightfully observes a few things. ONE, how in fair cricket it just isn't done to suggest that avid uncritical melding of pro-military, pro-corporate views may accrue fascist-sounding and -appearing trappings and behaviours like, oh, monolithic definitions of "patriot" and flags on everything including the NYSE and big aircraft carriers named for still-living politicians related to the current boss. And TWO, how this accusation of soulless socialistic monsterdom is not supposed to rile the sensibilities of leftward leaning types, what with it being patently obvious like how women are just awful drivers and Polish people are really dumb.

Wait, those last things aren't true? Next, someone will tell me liberals don't cheer aborted babies and may, just may, actually love their own children. As if.

Yes, the Commie meme is especially dear to this blogger what with it being a perverse driver of so much of the last 50 years' triumphs and trainwrecks and an endlessly evolving project about Moonshots and (Red Menace-like) Tsunamis. The short exposition is the fact that thinking is damn boring, and that feeling, well, that's what some intelligent designer™ designed us for and here we are, feeling to the max. 21st C. American life is an orgy of sensation, the Friday the 13th franchise or the endless parade of bad 50s sci-fi all rolled up. Spooky stories enliven us, no matter how ridiculously stretched the telling has to get. And hey, I have slides to prove it...



So now, we have the main feature. Obama the alien being, a Muslim in reel one, a radical Christian in reel two, a liberal non-bowling elitist in reel three and, next, now, the ultimate culmination that only sputniks, UFOs, mushroom clouds and Rosa Parks could deliver. Attack of the 50 Foot Negro. There goes the galaxy.

Does it make sense? Hah. Sense would be Hillary Clinton realizing she's fragging one of her own and her legacy in her quixotic search for relevance and its last gasp cartoon of Boomer consultant-solution-speak, all the while making John McCain appear like a breath of fresh air to a GOP-fatigued electorate. Sense in this age of hyperreal, with adults displaying the appetites, patience and judgment of children is as rare as Iridium, something I hear scientists say we find on Earth mostly because asteroids deliver it from outerspace with big cataclysmic booms of their own.

I digress. Benen points out the odd idea that comparisons to Joe Stalin shouldn't trouble a sturdy liberal head but calling a conservative fascist is somehow akin to calling one a pedophile and just beyond the pale. There is nothing so complicated here as the "I'm rubber, you're glue" model of 7 year old debate. But Andrew Sullivan thinks he sees more.
[Kristol's] calling him a lying, Godless communist.

You could argue, as Kristol and others hilariously will, that Lou Dobbs has no base,
that fundamentalist Christianism has no problem with "the other" in a globalized world, that dozens of state constitutional amendments banning civil marriages that had never and would never have taken place were just spirited forms of civic engagement, rather than scapegoating or politicking on resentment. You could also argue, as others legitimately will, that spasms of economic distress and social discontent are unconnected. Hey: Weimar had nothing to do with Hitler. But Kristol is doing something much more pernicious: he is saying that Obama is faking faith, that his very profession of faith is a "mask" that is slipping, and that Kristol is the person to determine whose faith is genuine and who is a fraud.

A non-Christian manipulator of Christianity is calling a Christian a liar about his own faith. That's where they've gone to already. And it's only the middle of April. What are they so scared of?

What? Something so scary, so alien it makes them quake. Something William James would call a 'novel idea,' too novel and too discombobulating for comfort. They are scared of a black man who tilts their understanding of the machine, one whom many of their fellow Rs actually liked before he started getting the Michael Rennie treatment from Hillary and Mark Penn. They are scared of a 6-foot, 1.5 inch man, who is liked almost regardless AND because of his color. But it's his invocation of intrinsic goods, of the things we'd like to believe about ourselves collectively as Americans, that's what makes him seem 50-foot tall.

Leave be those small-town voters who may or may not be "bitter" about getting the shaft for the last 30 years. It's Hillary and Kristol who are apoplectic that their particular Boomer projects straddling two American centuries just haven't been the Moonshots they'd hoped for. They've got nukes. And Flag pins. And the 50-foot Commie-Alien with a real map to the moon must pay.


Labels: , , , ,

Monday, March 24, 2008

Sullivan's Mythology: Obama needs more Cowboy

Andrew Sullivan has been dreaming and droning about Obama Republicans--and they are there. But he's taken the Reagan Democrat mythology and spackled it onto the man from Illinois without understanding, I think, how mythology works.

Let's have a look-see.

Peggy Noonan, semi-admiring Obama's Wright Speech here, channels Ronnie Reagan as is her custom, teeing it up for Sullivan. Andy then attempts a heroic bank shot off the gnome, the fiberglass rhino, and into the door of the windmill:

The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan: That's why I think Pennsylvania is an opportunity for him. The most tired element, and the least refreshing aspect, of his message so far is a resort to left bromides about the grim facts of American life in the last twenty years or so. There are problems, real problems. Inequality, fostered by globalization, has left many Americans treading water at best. But the vitality of the economy, the astonishing creativity of American industry, especially in tech and pharmaceuticals, the miracle of the Internet, the relative cheapness of items like food and clothing that once consumed far more of the average American's expenses - these are also integral to the picture. Obama hasn't conveyed this complicated picture - perhaps because of the primary season. But he should. America needs hope. But it is not currently hopeless. And its recent past, despite the disasters of the past eight years, has had as many highs as lows.
Yes, the "left bromides about the grim facts of American life" are, well, grim, aren't they? But "if you can't say anything nice..." only goes so far here. A big part of slaying dragons and earning the hand of the fair maiden requires actually being in the company of, well, dragons. If dragon-breath, dragon-wreckage, and dragon-droppings make you queasy, maybe you've picked the wrong gig?

Andy is an unenviable position. Several really. He's actually trying to reconcile some of the metastatic misjudgments he's made in the last 8 or so years, most based on supremely magical thinking and mythic projection (Go to this Slate post of his look into the abyss.)

But, with his support of Obama, he's in a double bind. On the face of it, a vote for Obama offers psychic atonement and a public display of--what?--Hope? Practical open-mindedness? Atypical-white-personness? Probably some of each. But, and big but here, the Democrat's appeal to and via Kantian Intrinsic Goods such as Hope and Courage, Prudence and Charity have direct opposites in the concepts of Wrath and Fear, Sloth and Avarice. As Lakoff is noted for pointing out, orientational metaphors and concepts are meaningless without their opposites. Down needs an Up. Wrath demands Justice. Avarice evokes and revivifies Charity.

In a way, that's what this fight is about--Hillary versus Obama, I mean. He is tuned to Intrinsic and immutable concepts, she is aligned with the tired professional toolkit of "I'm about solutions™," otherwise known as Instrumental Goods. He compels others to consider self-sacrifice and Hope, she offers her time and energy and body as a Warrior, a sacrifice for our good - We Can versus I Will. Hers is truly a Martyr archetype versus his Sage or transforming Magician. Think about that for a moment. Hillary freaks over his ascendence because she, like certain others, can't hear the frequency of Obama's tune; can't understand how "words, just words" deserve any respect in a world of Men and Women of Action--in a world framed and formed by "Leaders" like her, each proud of their formulae and instruments. "Leaders" who misunderstand their job and turn it instead into "management," forgetting or never learning that actual leaders don't so much inspire others as they seek to catalyze those others to self-inspire. The reason this latter, truer definition makes sense is supremely practical -- you can't really do it alone, despite your admiration for Die Hard's John McClane or GE's Jack Welch. Leadership is a sort of 50 State Strategy for the heart and mind where everybody gets to fill their own big chair in ways large and small.

So, Andy, like a surprising (to some) cross-section of Americans are responding viscerally and behaviorally to their idealised self being reflected back at them by Obama. Andy likes liking Andy and believing the best of himself, as do we all. But, as guys like Jung and Boree tell us, the "Self"we're talking about here is the transcendence of opposites--the accommodation of higher and base elements within our psyches--not the banishment of the less savory bits. And there's the problem. Okay, the problems...
There are problems, real problems. Inequality, fostered by globalization, has left many Americans treading water at best.
Damn, "treading water" is what you do while waiting to be rescued, Andy. Or, while waiting for your asshole brother in law to come back around with the ski-boat. It's hard to be charitable and philosophical when you're snorting in water every couple of breaths. Reports from the field suggest most are praying the lifeguard gets to them quick. But I digress. What advantages should diminish the impact of Sullivan's tiring cultural swim test?
the vitality of the economy, the astonishing creativity of American industry, especially in tech and pharmaceuticals, the miracle of the Internet, the relative cheapness of items like food and clothing that once consumed far more of the average American's expenses
Do you see it, or is it just me? A vital economy that has many treading water. A sleek American socio-economic clipper deserving of awe from its "many" citizens, who, while treading water should find the time to admire it's astonishingly creative form as it glides past them on its weekly jaunt to Asia. (Their dream jobs in it's cargo hold one way and returning with those "relatively cheap items" that they tread some extra-more to afford.)

Now, I'm just a stupid business consultant, so take this for what it's worth, but there aren't many middle managers I've met who can muster sustained interest, never mind bliss, when asked to contemplate the trails blazed by pharma science and process materials patentry. Most are consumed with their own variety of dog paddle.

I'll stop parsing with "recent disasters" equaling some imagined "highs" since my overworked prose doesn't do justice to such easy sport as Andy presents. He does deserve some credit for tiptoeing up to that abyss: Sullivan's trying where others remain soulless and unapologetic cowards, armchair dragon-slayers, pretend warriors. But Andy's not going to find his absolution, his clarity (and nor would others), until he lets go of the a la carte method of characterizing the dragons he's really trying to slay.

He's not going to succeed in his apparent mono-mythic journey if he insists on making its requirements conform to him rather than the necessary other way 'round.

The mythology here is really the truest way to explain Andy's temporal battle. Myths are gathered collections of meaning holding immutable lessons played out by people with funny names doing alarming things. They are fantasy or fabrications on the outside, true and sustaining in some way at their core. But it's easy to get them muxed. Noonan's and Andy's Reagan, as history shows, was less their beautiful Achilles and more the mythical three-part Chimera defined - A persona that said one thing, an ego that did another, and a self that believed there was no dissonance between the two.
REAGAN (3/4/87): A few months ago, I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that’s true. But the facts and the evidence tell me it is not.
And so it goes; archetypes need not observe gravity and other laws if they feed some latent or damaged need in those who have the mass, the mouth or the money to sustain them.

Still, the Reagan Chimera, draped over the country as a whole, offends the sensibilities of people who are asked to agree that it is, in fact, a beautiful Pegasus-like steed at all times. It offends people whose mythology and reality are equally alarming: 20 year-old men hanging from trees and set afire is unbelievably horrible imagery fresh in the minds of now-70 year-old men who escaped alive that particular chapter of American White-Horse Exceptionalism. Likewise, 35 year-old workers told to get tech jobs to replace their disappearing factory ones now find, at 50, that the shiny economy they're to be so proud of rewards market sentiment and derivatives--a tea leaves-reading priesthood--not guilds of crafting or coding.

As a self-described clear-eyed man, Sullivan continues to take Myth to childish extremes. And to twist it's utility. He looks for the Perfect Hero, ignoring Achilles' heel, ignoring the flaws of the actor-president he adores; ignoring the necessary qualifications of "Hero." Andy wants Obama to heavy up on the Greek, and go easy on the Tragedy. He wants fantasy within the fantasy, a Gyro, not a Hero.

But, left to their own interpretive devices, grown-up Americans seem quite game to accept the truth within their ideal, to attempt an honest, unvarnished appraisal of at least one national dragon.
CBS/NYTimes National Poll: 70% Approved of Obama's Speech
by rashomon
And so, in order that Andy's cosmology can suffer least damage, Andy prescribes that Obama contort himself to the wrong kind of fantastical storytelling, falsifying the depth of lesson-learning and fact-acknowledging that underlies Obama's outward appeal. Andy wants Obama to make it all better by ignoring what made it "worse." But that is a recipe for another fabled tale, the continued Sisyphean boulder-pushing many sense of life in these 21st Century times that were supposed to be "better."

-----

Since we mention the Kant stuff above, an update for those following along: M&T has its legs and has had some rudimentary presentations to some hardcore political and finance types last week. The reaction was pretty good and our explanation of OODA, category/event, and the leverage of R-Complex was a hit; clarity achieved. More work to come, but great news.

Labels: , , ,

Friday, April 13, 2007

Where Have All the Leaders Gone?

Good question.
Where Have All the Leaders Gone?

By Lee Iacocca with Catherine Whitney

...I've never been Commander in Chief, but I've been a CEO. I understand a few things about leadership at the top. I've figured out nine points—not ten (I don't want people accusing me of thinking I'm Moses). I call them the "Nine Cs of Leadership." They're not fancy or complicated. Just clear, obvious qualities that every true leader should have. We should look at how the current administration stacks up. Like it or not, this crew is going to be around until January 2009. Maybe we can learn something before we go to the polls in 2008. Then let's be sure we use the leadership test to screen the candidates who say they want to run the country. It's up to us to choose wisely.

So, here's my C list:

Labels: