Category: Finance

Housing and the Economic Recovery

Perhaps the housing market is the best economic indicator?

As an economist, I am frequently asked for my predictions on when the economy is going to turn around.  Have we reached the bottom?  Have we begun to recover?  Might we go into a second, perhaps more severe recession?

Those are tough questions to answer.  Business cycles are notoriously difficult to predict.  In fact, about the only thing we know for sure is that no two business cycles are alike. Each is unique in some significant way.

Changes in the housing market may be one of the most meaningful indicators of a recovery, because housing stability is such a fundamental indicator of how households are budgeting their income.  Notice that I did not say that the level of homeownership was a useful indicator; instead, I look to changes in the housing market, either away from or toward an apparently sustainable and affordable supply of homes, for evidence of where in the business cycle the economy may be.

Despite record low mortgage rates and first-time home buyer credits, the U.S. housing market remains anemic.  Rising foreclosures in several major metropolitan areas will keep housing prices low for some time to come.

The U.S. currently has about 1.7 million excess housing units available.  Typically, about 1.3 million new households are formed in the U.S. per year.  But with the unemployment rate topping 10%, new household formation will fall to about 1 million per year.  If new home construction remains at its current level of about 600,000 units per year, it will take over 4 years (1.7 million/400,000) for the excess supply of housing to be absorbed and housing prices to recover.

Recovery rates will be much slower in some markets, such as in Florida, Nevada, and California, but I believe that the rest of the U.S. along with most other developed economies are looking at a three- to four-year period of time before housing and thus the overall levels of output return to their pre-recession levels.

By Sherry Jarrell

The Mystery of the Disappearing Ethics

The Dubai debt crisis raises fundamental questions.


UK banks account for half the £60billion of global loans to the debt-laden emirate, new statistics show.

Well done British banks ….. loads of loans built on sand … I suppose the words “conservative” and “prudent” didn’t get printed in the Banking Terminology dictionary?

So Britain, that Global Giant of the banking world, has half the dodgy loans? British banks are therefore as daft as the rest of the world put together? (Can someone check my maths!)

Oh, and why exactly were the banks lending money to SORDID DICTATORSHIPS? Would we have lent billions to Hitler’s Germany in 1937? What on earth happened to ETHICS in the financial world? I suppose lending to POOR countries who need it rather than the nasty, venal, corrupt dictatorships of the Middle East was right off the radar?

There is an obsession with the “Human Rights” of immigrants and others in Britain, but a complete and utter turning of  blind eyes to the slavery going on in the Middle East, as if it doesn’t concern us because it’s in “another far-off country of which we know little”. (Neville Chamberlain’s shameful explanation of his inaction over Hitler’s annexation of the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia in 1936.)

Sorry, but “No Man is an Island” …. we can’t sign the UN Declaration of Human Rights on the one hand and then blithely lend money (the PEOPLE’S money) to countries that are treating people so terribly.

I hope Dubai goes bankrupt and our cretinous banks with it so that we can start again with people’s banks that have a modicum of honour and decency and are prepared to invest in democracies, not insanely greedy property developments based on dictators’ idle fantasies.

It wasn’t much different with Sadaam Hussein, whatever you think of the invasion. This was a man who – just to take one example – gassed to death 5,000 innocent men, women and children in one single village alone. Yet countries in the “free world” were secretly queuing up to do deals with him. One British government MP even went there and shook his hand, the hand that consigned hundreds of thousands of people to a horrible death.

Ecology? Apart from anything else, Dubai’s carbon emissions are pro rata 250% higher than the US, so much power goes into air-conditioning and desalination. Once again, the left hand doesn’t know or care what the right hand is doing. A British minister tells us to stop eating meat to save the world while British banks simultaneously rush to finance a humongously-profligate and obscenely-elitist project in the desert.

I sometimes wonder if we really deserve to survive Global Warming. Will it be God’s way of cleansing the Earth of an aberrant experiment in free will?

By Chris Snuggs

Commercial Real Estate and the U.S. Financial System

This is not over yet, folks

The U.S. banking system remains vulnerable to sizeable potential losses as the housing market struggles to recover.

Estimates of these losses range from $500 billion to $1 trillion (£312 bn – £625 bn). The Federal Reserve Board is especially concerned about the impact of commercial real estate on many regional and small banks across the country.  Occupancy and rental rates continue to decline dramatically as 2009 draws to a close, and the worst seems yet to come.

Commercial real estate loans on banks’ balance sheets total almost $1.1 trillion dollars.  With near-term commercial real estate losses topping $100 billion, the Wall Street Journal estimates that as many as one-third of small and mid-size U.S. banks could experience financial distress.



Troubled banks restrict lending until they can raise more capital.  In this illiquid market, expect banks to fight for survival by raising lending rates, shortening maturities, and lowering loan amounts.  Credit will continue to shrink in the U.S., which spells big trouble for any economic recovery.

By Sherry Jarrell

Let’s Introduce Obama’s Left Hand to his Right

To post or … what to post?

As I was perusing the business press this morning, an article caught my eye:  “That would make a great post!” I thought to myself.  I continued reading through the rest of the articles, intending to go back to the one that piqued my interest to compose a comment.  Of course, when I went back, I could not find it!

Trouble internally

But in the process of looking for that particular paragraph, I noticed something troubling. Something that, should my students’ papers include the same, would bring their score down by a full letter grade, if not more.

Read more of this Post

Why the Anger over U.S. Executive Compensation?

Pay and the Free Market

It came up again in conversation today:  someone was offended and upset over the level of compensation of some senior executives in the U.S. economy.   I have to admit I just do not understand the anger. And I have a fundamental lack of respect for the arguments that have been served up thus far in support of the position.

I have tried to resist drawing the conclusion that the anger is born of envy, but I am very close to throwing in the towel on that one.  Why should we begrudge anyone who earns a healthy salary, especially in an economy that provides each of us the opportunity to aspire to the same?

Even if there were reasonable ways around the practical issues and costs associated with legislative caps on salaries — how to set them, who sets them, using what measures, what value judgements — it simply makes no sense.  It is the antithesis of a competitive market economy where individuals have the incentive to learn, grow, work hard, and succeed.  It ignores the role played by capitalism in creating a strong and vibrant private economy that provides endless opportunities for all who want to put in the hours and the effort to succeed.

U.S. corporate governance rules provide the framework for determining the compensation for senior executives, and it works remarkably well.  Each shareholder, or owner of the company, gets one vote on material issues such as reorganization. The Board of Directors is responsible for hiring and firing senior management on behalf of the shareholders.  If the shareholders do not like the decisions of the board, including those that set the level and form of compensation for senior management, they have at least two, very effective choices. They can either sell their shares in the company or they can vote to replace the board members.  The board can take several steps if, after negotiating the compensation package for senior management, the executive fails to perform. The board can withhold the bonus, renegotiate the terms of the contract, or fire the executive.  Then the long, mostly objective arm of the competitive labor market will determine the market-clearing value for the skills and experience of the recently fired executive.

One thing I’ve never quite understood is why the market doesn’t seem to exact more punishment on senior executives who run their companies into the ground.  Maybe there is an old boys network that looks out for ex-executives; maybe my observations are biased; maybe I notice only those cases where failed executives rise again.  But it’s an empirical question, in any case; we can gather data on the issue and study it objectively.

Regardless of the conclusions of such an analysis, however, decisions about executive compensation must remain in the labor market where your ability to produce economic value still reigns supreme over your ability to curry votes and political favor.

By Sherry Jarrell

Remarkable people: Warren Buffett

What does Bill Gates admire about Warren Buffet?


On this blog about integrity, and in these difficult economic times, it is particularly poignant to note that Bill Gates cites Warren Buffett’s integrity. This was during a recent event at Columbia Business School in New York City, see below.

While many of the questions from MBA students and the answers from Gates and Buffett are not new, Buffett’s brief witty and topical comments provide considerable insight into his thinking.

It is particularly interesting to get a sense of how the world is viewed by people with their perspective. When asked about the outlook for America, both Gates and Buffett answered that it is very good. Warren Buffett even offered any of the MBA students $100,000 in return for 10% of their future earnings. Later, he increased the offer to $150,000, if they received training in personal communication skills!

Watch them together on CNBC at Columbia Business School, New York City on November 12, 2009.

Maybe you are interested in further information about Warren Buffett, if so you are not alone. The BBC, among others, have taken a strong interest in him recently.

You might like to read and view some recent stories on the “Oracle of Omaha” including:

Despite a setback in 2008, Warren Buffett’s long term investment success is without question.

By John Lewis

Goldman Sachs – doing God’s work!

A fascinating and revealing interview in the Sunday Times.

This article in the British Sunday Times was published on November 8th and I’m sure many will have read it.  But for those that didn’t it really is worth settling down to a reasonably long read.  For you will learn that Goldman Sachs:

It’s the site of the best cash-making machine that global capitalism has ever produced, and, some say, a political force more powerful than governments. The people who work behind the brass-trim glass doors make more money than some countries do. They are the rainmakers’ rainmakers, the biggest swinging dicks in the financial jungle. Their assets total $1 trillion, their annual revenues run into the tens of billions, and their profits are in the billions, which they distribute liberally among themselves. Average pay this recessionary year for the 30,000 staff is expected to be a record $700,000. Top earners will get tens of millions, several hundred thousand times more than a cleaner at the firm. When they have finished getting “filthy rich by 40”, as the company saying goes, these alpha dogs don’t put their feet up. They parachute into some of the most senior political posts in the US and beyond, prompting accusations that they “rule the world”. Number 85 Broad Street is the home of Goldman Sachs.

The world’s most successful investment bank likes to hide behind the tidal wave of money that it generates and sends crashing over Manhattan, the City of London and most of the world’s other financial capitals. But now the dark knights of banking are being forced, blinking, into the cold light of day. The public, politicians and the press blame bankers’ reckless trading for the credit crunch and, as the most successful bank still standing, Goldman is their prime target. Here, politicians and commentators compete to denounce Goldman in ever more robust terms — “robber barons”, “economic vandals”, “vulture capitalists”. Vince Cable, the Lib Dem Treasury spokesman, contrasts the bank’s recent record results — profits of $3.2 billion in the last quarter alone — and its planned bumper bonus payments with what has happened to ordinary people’s jobs and incomes in 2009.

and later on in conversation with the Chairman and CEO, Lloyd Blankfein:

“Is it possible to have too much ambition? Is it possible to be too successful?” Blankfein shoots back. “I don’t want people in this firm to think that they have accomplished as much for themselves as they can and go on vacation. As the guardian of the interests of the shareholders and, by the way, for the purposes of society, I’d like them to continue to do what they are doing. I don’t want to put a cap on their ambition. It’s hard for me to argue for a cap on their compensation.”

So, it’s business as usual, then, regardless of whether it makes most people howl at the moon with rage? Goldman Sachs, this pillar of the free market, breeder of super-citizens, object of envy and awe will go on raking it in, getting richer than God? An impish grin spreads across Blankfein’s face. Call him a fat cat who mocks the public. Call him wicked. Call him what you will. He is, he says, just a banker “doing God’s work”

Indeed!

By Paul Handover

Reflecting on insider trading

Time to Reassess Insider Trading Rules?

On the face of it, prohibiting insider trading seems to be fair and reasonable.

US insider trading laws, refined over time in court on a case-by-case basis, define “trading on the basis of inside InsiderTradinginformation” as any time a person trades while aware of material nonpublic information (US Securities and Exchange Commissions Rule 10b5-1, which also creates an affirmative defense for pre-planned trades.) SEC regulation FD (“Fair Disclosure”) also requires that if a company intentionally discloses material non-public information to one person, it must simultaneously disclose that information to the public at large; in an unintentional disclosure, the company must make a public disclosure “promptly.” Lastly, the Williams Act gives the SEC regulatory authority over insider trading in takeovers and tender offers.

Read more about Insider Trading

Remarkable people: Benjamin Zander

Music is his base

Very few people demonstrate and explain the benefits of responding positively to the world around us as effectively as Benjamin Zander.  The Boston Philharmonic Orchestra is “semi-professional”, which means that it is a volunteer orchestra who play to professional standards. He has conducted the orchestra for 30 years; and his standing as a professional cellist and conductor is without question.

Leadership is his forte

But his contribution as a musician is exceeded by his contribution as a speaker on leadership.

He combines speeches on leadership with his musical performances and has given keynote speeches at the World Economic Forum on at least four occasions.

In the book ,”The Art of Possibility”, which he co-authored with his partner Rosamund Stone Zander, they relate the following moving story.

A New Children’s Story

A little girl in second grade underwent chemotherapy for leukaemia.  When she returned to school, she wore a scarf to hide the fact that she lost all her hair. But some of the children pulled it off, and in their nervousness laughed and made fun of her.  The little girl was mortified and that afternoon begged her mother not to make her go back to school. Her mother tried to encourage her, saying. “The other children will get used to it, and anyway your hair will grow in again soon.”

The next morning, when their teacher walked in to class, all the children were sitting in their seats, some still tittering about the girl who had no hair, while she shrank into her chair.  “Good morning, children, “ the teacher said, smiling warmly in her familiar way of greeting them. She took off her coat and scarf. Her head was completely shaved.

After that, a rash of children begged their parents to let them cut their hair. And when a child came to class with short hair, newly bobbed, all the children laughed merrily – not out of fear – but out of the joy of the game. And everybody’s hair grew back at the same time.

Isn’t that wonderful?

Contrast that with the narrow thinking behind a recent incident at at school in the Australia when a child shaved her head to raise money for a charity in support of her father’s illness. She was barred from the school. The story is described here.

How daft is that? As others have asked, what would they have done if a pupil had lost her hair as a result of chemotherapy?

Sometimes you might wonder whether we live on the same planet!

Take time to watch …

If you are not familiar with Benjamin Zander’s presentation, then this is an uplifting experience. For example, this presentation (of more than an hour) was given at the World Economic Forum 2009 (and never mind the image quality, it is good enough!):

More on remarkable people …

By John Lewis

Integrity in the making of films.

Creativity, Integrity and commercialism – are there conflicts?

This is guest post from Magnus Dennison.  Magnus is a Cinematographer who, together with his wife, Katja Roberts, runs a film production company in Newcastle-upon-Tyne in the North-East of England. Their company is called Meerkat Films.  Magnus writes about integrity in film making.

I am going to write about film producers who have made creative choices to ensure their films are commercial successes. My question is whether these films lose their integrity when the motivation for making them becomes financial.

A little about my background. I am an independent film producer working in the UK and don’t profess to be an expert on these matters; the views expressed here are simply my opinion.

I will start by presenting one of my favourite films: ‘The Lives of Others’ (2006) directed by Florian Henckel von Das_Leben_der_anderenDonnersmarck. The team has, in my opinion, made one of the most powerful films of the decade. But more interestingly, they have made many choices that have preserved the integrity of the story at the risk of reducing commercial viability.

It is obvious why they have done this; they are passionate about the artistry and the integrity of the film, more than the financial gain. The film is very slow paced and the tension builds so gradually you’re almost unaware of it until you are completely engrossed.

Read more of this guest post