The current economic situation has spawned a billion “fix it quick” schemes. I think most of them found there way to my desk via group e-mails. Most are half baked; all self-serving. But one caught my attention and it illustrates some very valid points. Not that I thought it was a good idea, just that it shed light on the complexity of the problems in a world with this many people. The e-mailer said that his solution for the current economic downturn was to give every American over the age of fifty one million dollars. He said that this would cost the government fifty billion dollars. More on that in a second.
With that influx of mad money pumped into the system, the author said, the housing crisis would be immediately ended because there would be a huge demand for upgraded houses. Banks would receive a huge influx of cash from existing mortgages being paid off. The auto companies would be back on the sunny side of the street because presumably everyone would buy cars. State coffers would bulge from the increase in sales tax revenues. Money would not only trickle down to every facet of society, but would gush down flooding even the most deprived areas of the economy with new money. “Happy days are here again….”
Okay, first of all, the man’s math was hideously wrong. There are over sixty million US citizens over the age of fifty, bringing the cost of his tongue in cheek plan well into the trillions. But let’s assume his math was correct. Imagine what would happen. The day the plan was announced, millions of people around the age of forty would flood the streets making the last week’s violence in Iran look like a stroll down Sunset Boulevard by comparison - everyone bemoaning their exclusion and demanding to be included in some way into “The Great Fix”. The Democrats and Republicans would want to take full credit for the plan for all those who would be receiving money while blaming the other party for excluding everyone else. Overnight, counterfeit birth certificate mills would spring up, with false documents selling for as much as $100,000 (ten percent of the value) or more. An entire industry dedicated to bilking the elderly would spring up instantly. (Even more tenacious than the one currently in place) The price of both houses and cars would be artificially inflated by the enormous demand, thereby creating a bubble that would only burst again after all the millions were spent a couple of years down the road. The effect on the global economy from this American solution is too complex to analyze in anything with only one volume.
This “solution” or lack of one to be more accurate, comes to mind with the United States grappling with health industry reform of an unprecedented magnitude. Be on the lookout for arguments from all those “forty year olds” about to be excluded from the final plans. Everyone currently benefiting from the system as it is now will be pumping billions of dollars into a marketing campaign warning the population that the new plan will bring down the very wrath of God. All those companies who will benefit from a change in plan will be pumping equal amounts of money promoting “the new solution.” It will be very difficult to harvest the truth from either argument. And no plan could possibly come close to being “right for everyone.”
Somebody, someplace will have to say, “This plan is not right for me. It will cost me more money, but I am in favor of it because it will benefit the country as a whole.” In fact, many millions of “somebodies” will have to say that. “Talk about your paradigm shifts…..…….
By Myron Gushlak
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Scam Insurance
The past eighteen months or so have provided an endless supply of news stories about financial failures, scams and reports of general mis-management. Regular readers of this blog will recall several months ago, that I railed against the watchdogs of the industry – Moody’s, Standard and Poor et al for being practically criminally negligent as they continued to highly rate the financial products of many of the now infamous companies as they were about to collapse. Freddie Mac and Lehman Brothers are only two of many examples. It seems that there might not be a need for the government to get involved with a punitive action against these institutions. It seems, as is often the case, that the market is taking care of that situation internally.
I am referring to an article that came out that reports that David Einhorn has revealed that his current short-selling target is Moody’s, the credit rating firm. www.dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/prominent-short-seller-puts-moodys-in-his-sights . Why is this newsworthy? Mainly because Mr. Einhorn , who runs the New York hedge fund, Greenlight Capital, is the same man who sold Lehman Brothers short many months before it collapsed last fall. Mr. Einhorn declined to say how long he had been selling Moody’s short, but the share price was down 7% as the story broke. “Einhorn contends that investors have learned not to rely on Moody's, which for years has been criticized because it earns fees from the companies it rates. And after the mortgage market melted down in 2007, Moody's came under fire for giving top grades to bonds and derivatives backed by subprime loans.”
In explaining his rationale, Einhorn said, “The truth is nobody I know buys or uses Moody’s credit ratings because they believe in the brand. They use it because it is part of a government –created oligopoly and, often, because they are required to by law.” The “oligopoly” surely refers to the practice of being paid by the very people you are hired to rate, one of my own problems with the rating system as spelled out in past blogs.
Those who favor less government regulation can tout this development as an example of how the market self-corrects without government micro-managing. It is a classic case of the problem being fixed from within -a modern version of taking the criminal into the back room and beating the crap out of him. By the time “the law” gets there, they might find that justice has already been served. It’s an amusing idea, really – the notion of selling short as vigilante justice. But it does have a certain old world charm nonetheless.
By the way, shortly after this story broke, Einhorn told Reuters that he had been watching Moody’s since 2002, which is explanation enough as to why his actions are gathering so much attention.
By Myron Gushlak
I am referring to an article that came out that reports that David Einhorn has revealed that his current short-selling target is Moody’s, the credit rating firm. www.dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/prominent-short-seller-puts-moodys-in-his-sights . Why is this newsworthy? Mainly because Mr. Einhorn , who runs the New York hedge fund, Greenlight Capital, is the same man who sold Lehman Brothers short many months before it collapsed last fall. Mr. Einhorn declined to say how long he had been selling Moody’s short, but the share price was down 7% as the story broke. “Einhorn contends that investors have learned not to rely on Moody's, which for years has been criticized because it earns fees from the companies it rates. And after the mortgage market melted down in 2007, Moody's came under fire for giving top grades to bonds and derivatives backed by subprime loans.”
In explaining his rationale, Einhorn said, “The truth is nobody I know buys or uses Moody’s credit ratings because they believe in the brand. They use it because it is part of a government –created oligopoly and, often, because they are required to by law.” The “oligopoly” surely refers to the practice of being paid by the very people you are hired to rate, one of my own problems with the rating system as spelled out in past blogs.
Those who favor less government regulation can tout this development as an example of how the market self-corrects without government micro-managing. It is a classic case of the problem being fixed from within -a modern version of taking the criminal into the back room and beating the crap out of him. By the time “the law” gets there, they might find that justice has already been served. It’s an amusing idea, really – the notion of selling short as vigilante justice. But it does have a certain old world charm nonetheless.
By the way, shortly after this story broke, Einhorn told Reuters that he had been watching Moody’s since 2002, which is explanation enough as to why his actions are gathering so much attention.
By Myron Gushlak
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)