A Simmer Down Now

Nobel winning economist and liberal zeitgeist Paul Krugman suggested today with a straight face that we return to a financial system, as he put it “like the 60s” - pure depository institutions saving and lending with little to no securitization or hedging. He also seemed to half-heartedly pick a fight with Larry Summers. I hope Larry will put down his 17th diet Coke of the day for a moment and take 20 minutes to draft a response for next week’s Financial Times. It would be a debate we would all benefit from. But then again maybe Summers thinks Krugman’s argument is too much of a straw man, too weak and unthreatening to solicit a response.

Krugman’s general sentiment is dead on, in that the financial system of the future cannot replicate the one we’ve just had. But this does not mean we have to roll back all financial innovation in extremus. This doesn’t mean we need to purge Wall Street or banks of anything that is a little complicated. I think more than anything else it means we just need more checks and balances, or in some places the creation of them, like over the counter trading. And it means we need to “keep it simple stupid.” The experiences of the last 6 months are not so much about the creation of new or wildly complicated financial products, as it is a reminder that firms need at least 5% or so cash on hand and need to verify the information their loans are based on (e.g. mortgage applicants). If these two things had been in place we wouldn’t be here today, and Krugman would not have the bully pulpit to adopt his pseudo neo-Ludite financial perspective.

Look at it from the perspective of a newly graduated college student with a decent job, who wants to buy her first house. The ability of this person to get a loan, and the interest charged on it is directly related to the willingness of banks to provide it. A typical bank will have 90% of their portfolio seeking a return in some respect. A good deal of these will be wrapped in recourse debt instruments to provide diversity, and often produce a margin via selling. This diversity represents more risk control for the banks and thus confidence to lend, and this margin represents more money the bank can lend, and thus more favorable credit terms for our post-collegiate house owning aspirant. And the security is only unsustainable, only contributes to a bubble, if the face value is below the current value of the future cash flows – e.g. if significant numbers of those who borrowed the consumer debt that stands behind the security will not actually pay up. This risk can be prevented quite easily with accurate information about the borrowers. This is widely applied today in the government’s new housing plan, which won’t deal with potential borrowers above a 38% debt/income ratio. Of course, to determine this you have to actually record this information. A greasy-haired condo pusher in El Paso wasn’t always accurately reporting this information to banks, surprise surprise! and banks were eager to make the deal anyway to push it up the chain. But this little scheme does not mean securities cannot be properly valued. In fact it just means the Fed needs to require actual records of income to be reported, as they did in February. So, securities can actually be worth more than their market price, and it’s good for the investor who sees a profit, good for the banks who generate more financing, and good for our college grad who can afford a slightly better house on better terms. Krugman would have us, in one radical fell swoop, nix this whole concept. Dangerous idea.

The other part of his argument attacks the big spooky market of derivates, e.g. futures, options and swaps- concepts that have only been around for hundreds of years- from farmers wanting to protect their crops from future unpredictable weather to British spice traders who didn’t want their global deals to be subject to the volatility of foreign exchange currencies. Derivatives just allow risk control, and if you happen to control this risk yourself, an incentive to do so in the form of profit. And yes, rules need to be in place. Like the degree of leveraging and collateral, or who’s trading where- tracking all this is in the works. Yet high finance is not the only place where Lord of the Flies will play out if there aren’t basic rules, and this caveat is no reason to pick on Wall Street. The credit default swaps (you will swap money for my asset if it turns out to totally suck) fiasco with AIG was not a result of the derivatives or futures system, but because they invested in a bubble (quite happily) and didn’t have nearly enough cash on hand to meet their obligations. Options and swaps are banks’ insurance, and without them they will understandably lend a lot less. Which means Krugman’s argument hurts just about everyone who wants to ever use money for anything. We require insurance for a $2,000 Datsun with 270,000 miles, it's the law, why would we not have insurance on $1 billion in mortgage loans? Or 20 million barrels a day of crude that we import? Or pensions? Or… Risk control is paramount and lowers the costs of financing and increases the availability of productivity enhancing capital. Keep it simple stupid.

Cap n’ Trade = Tax n’ Trade = Tax n’ (Bubble + Windfall)

There has been a lot of talk about a market-based cap and trade system as the ticket to a clean energy future. It’s a good solution. It could work. But it also carries significant risk, risk that a revenue neutral price signal (tax) would not. A recent MIT report highlights the expediency involved in getting climate policy right the first time. This 2009 study projects a median increase of 5.1 C (9.2 F) by 2100, up from a 2003 projection of 2.3 C. This kind of warming will have serious implications on everything from biodiversity to agricultural and forestry production to sea levels on a scale of meters. Any policy the United States seriously puts in place will take years. The EPA for instance has just completed a draft mandatory reporting rule for every producer that emits more than 25,000 pounds of GHGs a year, about 13,000 in the U.S. It has taken years of dialogue to get to this point. The rule still has to be finalized, then a registry set up ands tested, and then the actual cap would have to be developed, and then a tidal wave of litigation resolved. The point is, after all of this is sorted through, the system we get better work. Because of the potential for bubbles, price manipulation and windfall profits in a cap system, there is an elevated risk that it might not. The resultant public pushback and backlash in Washington could very well cause significant modifications if not outright repeal of such a system.

There are three basic issues with a cap system: 1) it’s just a nicer word for a tax because a cap creates scarcity which increases prices 2) even if the permits are auctioned off at the outset if can still result in huge windfall profits that can distort markets and create bubbles and 3) there is an implicit trade-off between price volatility and emissions reductions. This last point is because there is either a price ceiling or there isn’t. Without one, prices can be as high as the market will allow. In the case of the acid rain market, permits got above $1,000/ton and last year showed 75% year over year price volatility. This is far from good for businesses, investors or consumers. And this is in a market where there are readily available technological substitutes. Low sulfur coal is abundant. Scrubbers that capture SO2 and NO2 exist and are cheap. The same is not true for GHG reductions, so there is every reason to think that without a ceiling the price in the GHG market would be higher not lower than the already very high-priced and volatile acid rain market. However, if there is a ceiling, it is maintained in the same way the Federal Reserve targets interest rates, by open market operations with a reserve of credits. In the Fed’s case, reserves in cash, in the GHG market the reserves would be GHG credits. But what happens if you run out of these credits held in reserve? In other words, what happens if it takes more credits than have been set aside to deflate the price to the level prescribed in law? Well then you just create more permits, oh and there goes the whole point of the system – because you’re above the cap, e.g. you’re not reducing emissions which is a primary purpose of the system.

And it is often said that the issue of windfall profits, assigning private rights to a previously non-exclusive public good (like atmospheric emissions) that enriches the recipient of the now newly minted asset class, can be solved with a 100% auction system. Why is this an issue? Say the auction sells credits to the market at $5/ton CO2. The EU and Chicago Climate exchange (the largest U.S. exchange for GHG emissions) have historically traded CO2 at around $4 ton, so in all likelihood $5 is a very high initial assumption and it’ll be more like $2. But even if it’s $5, these permits will be held onto by the market until they appreciate. And the anxiety alone of a new energy scarce world will probably lead to significant appreciation right away. Not to mention that when a firm needs to buy these credits they have few short terms options and so it’s not hard to imagine them being bid up. Now if the price in the market is $20/ton, then there is a 300% windfall, the asset netted 3x what it cost, equivalent to a 75% subsidy. If there was no auction, the windfall would be infinite (something for nothing) – so it’s less windfall than without an auction, but still a windfall. Windfalls are basically strong subsidies, and subsidies distort price signals, create artificial value and expands the size of the market because of the elasticity of demand. So there is value creation absent new productivity, and absent new wealth creation these prices can not be supported indefinitely, they will have to fall. E.g. a classic boom and bust cycle – originating in windfall profits. In short, if firms get assets that trade at $20 for $5 they have a $15 profit margin, which is a good thing for the firm, but that $15 now has to be put somewhere. And because it was created simply by an actuarial identity, because the government said the credits will be sold for that price, and not because of $15 productivity gain, this $15 will contribute towards inflation and asset appreciation that is not sustainable in the mid-run.

Cap and trade can work, it is just that we must be sober about the risk it carries and think hard about getting it right. One approach would be to design a system that is entirely revenue neutral – so all that new money out there is offset by government spending. Another approach might be to smooth out price volatility by creating larger margin calls or position limits. Or, here’s another idea.

10 Things I Want to Do in No Particular Order and I’m not Sure Why (and maybe I don’t want to do all of them)

-Enter a hot tub from a rolling start, perhaps office chair.

-Play bass guitar to the moon with no shirt.

- Get a tattoo of a giant V on my shoulder, it would stand for many different things.

- Shoot a music video. I tried this a few years ago and had three police encounters.

-Take a company public- fuck this is nearly impossible.

-Shake Merritt Paulson’s hand.

-Bravely lose an eating contest.

-Ask someone reading a newspaper in the subway to name one thing they remember from the paper they read last week.

-Jazzercise.

-You know, that one thing we did that was really sweet.