顯示具有 Review 標籤的文章。 顯示所有文章
顯示具有 Review 標籤的文章。 顯示所有文章

2012年9月29日 星期六

Book Review: 'Volcker,' by William Silber

Volcker: The Triumph of Persistance
By William Silber
Bloomsbury Press
464 pp; $30

Some statesmen blossom late in life; others bloom early and disappear. Paul Volcker did both. The young Volcker was an influential Nixon administration official during the 1971 crisis when America ditched the gold standard. Volcker later ran the Federal Reserve Board for eight years, where he had the guts to raise interest rates and brook a recession, thereby subduing inflation. When he retired in 1987 he was an international hero, having acquired a reputation for unflinching rectitude. He retreated from public view and became a partner for a spell at Wolfensohn, an investment bank. Then, as Wall Street began to lose its head with mortgages, Volcker, like a curmudgeonly deity on Olympus, began to toss thunderbolt warnings about the frothiness of America’s financial system. President Barack Obama, capitalizing on Volcker’s wise man rep, brought the banker back to public service and—briefly—to center stage.

William Silber, a financial historian and professor at the Stern School of Business at New York University, has the challenge of fitting this lopsided story—his subject, who turned 85 last month, enjoyed his most fruitful years before age 60—into a coherent narrative. He succeeds admirably in Volcker: The Triumph of Persistence. Silber, who had Volcker’s cooperation, emphasizes the former Fed chief’s independence and willingness to take unpopular stances, a trait as laudable in public life as it is uncommon. Silber all but ignores the 20 years following Volcker’s Fed chairmanship; even his recent service is an afterthought.

As an Obama adviser, he fought for adoption of the “Volcker Rule,” which forbids proprietary trading by banks. The reason his star doesn’t shine as brightly in this section is that Volcker himself admits the rule wouldn’t have prevented the failures at Lehman Brothers or American International Group (AIG), or much else that went wrong in 2008. One has the sense that Volcker’s motivation for promoting the reform was partly emotional—that the banks had gotten too big and too risky and something had to be done.

Yet this episode underlines a little-noted facet to his character. Contemporary bankers loathe the Volcker Rule and tend to see its creator as a flame-throwing radical. As Silber deftly brings out, he’s anything but. The son of the town manager of Teaneck, N.J., Volcker “learned integrity at home.” Modest despite his towering, 6-foot-7 height, he was a throwback to the era of less-moneyed officials who endured personal sacrifice to work in government. His son was born with cerebral palsy and his wife suffered a variety of ailments; as Fed chief, Volcker lived in virtual student quarters in a one-bedroom apartment furnished with a bridge table and a 10-inch black-and-white TV, commuting to his family in New York on weekends.

On the job as a public official, he was a quintessential pragmatist committed to finding workable solutions. As Silber says of Volcker’s perception of an early boss, “he knew that politics, not economics, dominated Nixon’s mind and heart.” Moderation also ran in Volcker’s blood. To the extent that any ideology had a hold on him, it was the ideology of hard work, of earnestness, and old-fashioned virtues. He harbored a visceral dislike for traders of modern collateralized-debt obligations because they upended the traditional, more stable banking culture centered on lending to clients.

Volcker’s a conservative in the true sense of resisting change. Even in the early 1970s, as undersecretary of the Treasury for monetary affairs, he evidenced a profound reluctance to abandon Bretton Woods, the postwar framework under which every currency was pegged to the dollar and the dollar pegged to gold. As Americans bought more products overseas, the dollar came under fierce pressure and the system collapsed. Volcker jetted around the world trying to patch together a new set of fixed rates. Free-floating rates were inevitable, but he wanted no part of it. He likewise abhorred inflation because it can destabilize the economy.

Silber devotes most of the book to the first two of Volcker’s “crises”—the collapse of the gold standard and the battle against inflation (the third crisis being the meltdown of 2008). These sections are extraordinarily well researched; readers come to realize that the crises were joined, and that Volcker was engaged in one sustained battle. Once gold was no longer relevant, the dollar had no anchor, and inflation became unavoidable—at least until the Fed developed the will to combat it. This required the sort of gruff resolve that was Volcker’s forte. As Silber says, Volcker “showed that a determined central banker can behave like a surrogate for gold.”

It was Jimmy Carter who in 1979 nominated Volcker as Fed chairman. The president later complained when Volcker’s policies of high interest rates threatened to tip the economy into recession and thus jeopardize Carter’s reelection. Volcker never blinked and proceeded to stare down Ronald Reagan as well. He hiked the overnight rate (also known as the fed funds rate) by two percentage points, to 14 percent, in the midst of a major recession—and he made clear that such tight money policies would continue until Reagan got serious about cutting the deficit. When Reagan (or his underlings) tried to undercut the Fed chief, Volcker demanded a solo meeting with the president. Afterward, Reagan issued a conciliatory statement and months later signed a bill raising taxes and moderating the deficit. It’s hard to think of a Fed chief acting so independently since, what with Alan Greenspan cozying up to then Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and Ben Bernanke clinging to Secretaries Hank Paulson and Tim Geithner. As Silber sums up, Volcker “refused to accommodate increases in government debt as the economy expanded.” Not for nothing is he missed today.

From left, photographs by Joshua Roberts/Bloomberg; Dennis Brack/Bloomberg; Andrew Harrer/BloombergFrom left, photographs by Joshua Roberts/Bloomberg; Dennis Brack/Bloomberg; Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg

Lowenstein is a columnist for Bloomberg News.

View the original article here

2012年6月1日 星期五

Book Review: 'Unintended Consequences,' by Edward Conard

Unintended Consequences:
Why Everything You’ve Been Told About the Economy Is Wrong
By Edward Conard
Penguin Portfolio; 320pp; $27.95

With his bashing of private equity, Barack Obama has given Mitt Romney a huge opening. Edward Conard, Romney’s friend and former partner at Bain Capital, is eagerly seizing that opportunity with his manifesto for private investment, Unintended Consequences: Why Everything You’ve Been Told About the Economy Is Wrong. Conard is eloquent and passionate about the virtue of investment and even the merits of America’s trade deficit. He’s the ideal guy to challenge post-crash criticisms of America’s market economy, and to serve as a sort of shadow debating captain against the Democrats’ populist instincts.

Regrettably, Conard overplays his hand. As far off the rails as Obama can be in attacking Bain for chasing profits—which is merely capitalism at work—Conard goes him one better. You know the Democrats’ caricature of Republicans who only care about rich people? Well, meet Ed Conard.

The thesis of Unintended Consequences is that risky investment drives improved productivity, which in turn drives higher wages and living standards for the poor and the rich. This is standard trickle-down, and it’s not much in dispute. The trouble is where Conard goes with it. He chalks America’s superior performance up to the country’s being basically a capitalist nirvana. As he puts it—with characteristic humility—“U.S. innovators have produced Intel (INTC), Microsoft (MSFT), Google (GOOG), Facebook (FB), etc. The rest of the world has contributed next to nothing.”

Nonetheless, Conard thinks that the U.S. is short on capital. And if someone has to sacrifice in order to facilitate more investment, Conard, a card-carrying member of the 0.1 percent, is perfectly willing to nominate people who are less well off than he is.

In particular, Conard does not like that wealthy people have to pay taxes. As he tells it, any increase in marginal rates will discourage the rich from investing. And only the rich, he claims, do invest. (He conveniently omits the huge sums in pension funds.) He celebrates the inequality that produces big fortunes and sees in America’s skewed distribution evidence of the divine. “God”—Conard has learned, evidently on high authority—put the talented on earth “to take responsibility, lead, innovate, and take prudent risks.” While Conard presents the incentivizing power of lower tax rates as a proven and immutable fact, it is in fact highly contentious. In the 1990s, tax rates rose and so did growth. Conard does offer counter-arguments—but presented as the views of unnamed “proponents of income redistribution.” Conard uses this loaded phrase 18 times.

Conard plainly cares about investment. He also cares about yachts. Where some conservatives suggest taxing consumption rather than income, Conard rejoins: “A heavy tax on consumption will discourage increased investment by making it harder to display status.” And since, as he elsewhere argues, “the thirst for … impressive homes, sleek boats, and exotic vacations” is what largely motivates people, such trinkets of affluence must be protected.

He argues in effect that more private sector investment is always better. But government is about trade-offs. More resources invested in Silicon Valley means less for education or defense (or for food). Conard even disdains charity because it drains resources from the pool of capital; stocking the cellar with champagne is OK but not alms for the poor. His view of American progress is extremely blinkered. Surely free public schooling, the Homestead Act, and democracy—more than low capital-gains rates—enabled the U.S. to develop a productive middle class. Yet after lamenting that Hispanics “slip across the border” and send “their children” to “our schools,” he cautions: “We will not be as prosperous in the long run if we … provide the same benefits to all Americans regardless of their economic contribution.” This is, within limits, precisely how we did become prosperous.

Because Conard sees markets as perfect, he seeks to give them uninhibited control over society’s resources. He believes stimulus spending is ineffective because consumers will anticipate higher taxes later and refrain from spending. Conard thus imagines citizens to be the logical robots of economic theory. Similarly—and monstrously—he envisions a perfectly efficient housing market, and argues that middle-class Americans weren’t hurt by home foreclosures because “home owners with little of their equity at stake walked away from their homes to capture the value of lower rents.” This is the view of a theorist who stays indoors.

Try as he might to write empirically, Conard lets his bias show. The author singles out select stock market moves to prove the market rose in response to Republicans such as Reagan and fell due to Obama. He fails to mention that the market rose during each of Obama’s first three years. His partisanship leeches ultimately into something worse: bitterness that the world doesn’t seem eager for his pinched, miserly breed of capitalism. He blames America’s shortage of talent on “liberal-arts majors [who] choose selfish solipsism” and adds, as if it were a crime, “They study literature and art history rather than computer programming and engineering.” One wonders if Conard’s beef with poets is that they worship beauty more than capital.

Although Unintended Consequences reveals the author’s intelligence and skill at elucidating economics, its merits are overwhelmed by its elitism. One might have thought this was a volume to scare Obama. But it’s the Romney campaign that should hope it disappears.

Lowenstein is a columnist for Bloomberg News.

View the original article here

2012年5月13日 星期日

We Review the Facebook Roadshow Movie

(Replaced with magazine version.)

At last, the motion picture epic about superheroes combining their amazing powers to save the world came out this month. I refer, of course, to the Facebook Roadshow Movie. Unlike The Avengers, Facebook’s half-hour video pitch to potential investors hasn’t gotten great reviews. Is it so bad? This reviewer watched all 30 minutes and 59 seconds so you don’t have to.

Photographs by David Paul Morris/Bloomberg; Antoine Antoniol/Bloomberg

Facebook Roadshow begins with a Star Wars-style text crawl to set the context. Only this movie lacks a triumphal John Williams fanfare, and rather than something like “A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away…” it begins with “This presentation contains forward-looking statements.” The Star Wars theme would have been cool, though—or maybe the Darth Vader Imperial March, if you’re squeamish about online privacy.

The plot unfolds in five acts. Chief Financial Officer David Ebersman opens Act I (“Our Mission”) in an office lounge setting. Not a great start, production-value-wise. This movie seems more airline preflight safety video than The Social Network II directed by David Fincher.

And then the founder himself appears. Mark Zuckerberg is wearing his usual attire—gray T-shirt, jeans. He’s sitting in a plain conference room with gray carpet and a gray sofa. It could be any office in Corporate America, which is the point: No brogramming tomfoolery here, folks. Practitioners of unimpeachable management are we.

The filmmakers go for an Errol Morris camera style: close-ups with extemporaneous (or extemporaneous-ish) talking by the subjects. This is Zuckerberg in an ideal laboratory setting, where there’s no chance he’ll go off on a tangent or sweat profusely and reveal some secret patch sewn into a hoodie. As planetarium music undulates on the soundtrack, he talks about his inspiration for Facebook and creating a world where discovering stuff online doesn’t just mean search engines. He seems to be looking off to the side slightly, as if he’s reading a prompter, which damages the Errol Morris vibe. And yet Zuckerberg comes across as authentic, even sympathetic. You’ll root for him. By golly, this young man just might pull it off! SPOILER ALERT: He pulls it off.

The next character introduced is Chris Cox, Facebook’s vice president for product. He’s good. “Your life is an interesting story that a lot of people would be interested in,” he says. “Especially the global advertising-marketing complex,” Cox does not add. He and Zuckerberg go back and forth about the appeal of sharing photographs with friends and families. Pictures of babies, proud parents, and babies with proud parents swoop around on screen.

About seven minutes in, Zuck and Cox get into Act III: “Platforms.” “What we mean by platform is fabric that makes any product social,” says Zuckerberg. Such as what products? Cut to friendly cow-pattern graphics and Ben & Jerry’s (UL) executives, one of whom talks in a vaguely foreign accent about having a “holistic relationship with our community.” Ice cream. Social. Ice cream social! I’ll have a Cherry Garcia cone and some Facebook shares, please.

Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg doesn’t appear until around halfway through Facebook Roadshow. As students of narrative will recognize, this is the “compelling value proposition” part of the story arc. Sandberg describes the power of friend recommendations as a driver of sales. Facebook, she says, is “word of mouth at scale.” Children and others unfamiliar with the PowerPoint dialect may hear that and think, “Germs!” Some viewers, such as T. Rowe Price (TROW) fund managers, may leap out of their Aeron chairs and cheer.

Ebersman, the CFO, returns for Act IV: “Finance.” This part, which to connoisseurs of Silicon Valley corporate speak will seem nothing short of a masterpiece, is meant for financially mature audiences. As for everyone else, a suggestion: Treat this stretch as a workplace coffee-drinking game. “Payments infrastructure.” Drink! “Competitive advantage.” Drink! “Mobile monetization.” Chug it!

The ending is flat and a little puzzling. The CFO thanks viewers for the opportunity “to introduce Facebook.” This after the film notes that Facebook is closing in on a billion users. It’s like an instructional video on what to expect at McDonald’s (MCD). Seriously, is there anyone, particularly an institutional investor, who hasn’t made up her mind about this company and whether to buy the stock? Aha! Whiff of drama: There are skeptics on Wall Street and in the media who don’t think Facebook has proven itself as a can’t-miss way to hawk products. How does one know if one’s luxury car ad on Facebook leads to more sales? Imagine what Fincher could have done with this material.

The screen fades to black as the counter ticks down to 30:59 and … bonus footage! On comes an executive from liquor maker Diageo (DEO), who talks about the awesome power of Facebook ads to get people to buy more product. Skeptics answered, plot resolved. The end.

The bottom line: Parental advisory: Graphic scenes of value propositions may induce strong investment urges.


View the original article here

2011年7月5日 星期二

Exchange-Traded Funds Said to Face U.K. Fraud Prosecutor Review

July 05, 2011, 12:04 PM EDT By Lindsay Fortado and Kevin Crowley

July 5 (Bloomberg) -- U.K. fraud prosecutors are reviewing how exchange-traded funds are marketed and whether they have the tools to prosecute any wrongdoing in the industry, a person directly involved with the probe said.

The Serious Fraud Office, which prosecutes white collar crime, hired a consultant to interview bankers and lawyers to determine whether there is a risk that sales of the products may involve criminal conduct in the future. The Financial Services Authority and the Bank of England’s Financial Policy Committee have warned of a lack of transparency in the ETF market.

ETFs are exchange-listed products that mirror indexes, commodities, bonds and currencies and allow investors to buy and sell them like stocks. They grew more popular in the aftermath of the 2008 selloff that wiped $37 trillion from global equity markets because they carry lower fees than other funds, require lower initial investment than futures, can be traded throughout the day and cover most indexes.

Terry Smith, chief executive officer at London-based inter- dealer broker Tullett Prebon Plc, has said the products often fail to track the underlying asset whose behavior they’re designed follow, are exposed to the risk of a provider going bankrupt and are vulnerable to heavy short-selling.

Question Marks

“From the investor’s point of view, I think there are question marks over whether synthetic ETFs really are appropriate for all types of the retail marketplace,” FSA Chief Executive Officer Hector Sants said June 24.

Sam Jaffa, a spokesman for the SFO in London, declined to comment. Rachel Cohen, a spokeswoman at the FSA, declined to comment other than to refer to Sants’s previous remarks. No specific companies or products have been targeted in the probe at this point, the person said.

“There are a lot of myths surrounding ETFs,” said Alan Miller, founder and chief investment officer of SCM Private, which manages ETFs. “The average ETF has higher levels of transparency, better performance and lower risk than the average mutual funds.”

All the synthetic ETFs that Miller holds are 110 percent collateralized, he said. That compares well with the transparency of the absolute return fund sector, which has “shocking” transparency, said Miller, who is the former chief investment officer of New Star Asset Management Group Plc.

At a meeting of the interim FPC in June, the group warned that FSA bank supervisors should “monitor closely the risks associated with opaque funding structures, such as collateral swaps or similar transactions employed by exchange-traded funds,” according to a record of the meeting.

Mimic Performance

ETFs are typically designed to mimic the performance of gauges such as the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. Unlike mutual funds, whose shares are priced once daily after each trading session, ETFs are listed on an exchange where shares are bought and sold throughout the day. Global ETF assets grew to $1.37 trillion as of February from $74.3 billion in 2000, according to BlackRock Inc., the world’s biggest money manager.

The SFO began a wide probe in 2009 into whether banks sold credit-default swaps and structured-finance products, including collateralized debt obligations, with flawed valuations. The review didn’t result in a prosecution, and the agency wants to ensure that it is more prepared if there is a crisis in the ETF market, the person said.

The SFO is looking more closely at ETFs because they have similar characteristics to the CDOs that helped spark the financial meltdown in 2008, according to the person. Like CDOs, the quality of the underlying assets in synthetic ETFs can be unclear and there is the potential for firms to mis-sell assets that are being heavily short sold, the person said.

SFO director Richard Alderman is seeking legislation that would create a corporate criminal liability that would enable prosecutors to enforce fraud laws against companies or banks, the person said.

--Editors: Anthony Aarons, Steve Bailey

To contact the reporter for this story: Lindsay Fortado in London at lfortado@bloomberg.net; Kevin Crowley in London at kcrowley1@bloomberg.net.

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Anthony Aarons at aaarons@bloomberg.net; Edward Evans at eevans3@bloomberg.net.


View the original article here