IAFE 2010 Annual Conference - Keynote Speech: The Possible Misdiagnosis of a Crisis

A few words on some of the talks at the 2010 International Association of Financial Engineers meeting.
Let's start with the Keynote Speech: "The Possible Misdiagnosis of a Crisis" by Richard Roll,Japan Chair of Finance, UCLA & 2009 IAFE/SunGard Financial Engineer of the Year Winner
* The recent global financial crisis has been blamed on several factors
* Elementary principles of finance suggest that none of these explanations are likely
* There is an alternative diagnosis consistent with financial principles
* The current treatment may be exacerbating the symptoms

In his talk he used 3 hypotheses to conclude that the current crisis is due to the government's increased share of national wealth in the US economy at the expense of the private sector:
H1. The some of all assets equals the sum of liabilities on a balance sheet.
H2. Merkets are forward looking
H3. Total wealth in an economy decreases as the share of government ownership increases. As a way of benchmark he put forward the statistic that a 20% increase in total wealth by the government results in a 50% decrease in aggregate wealth.


H1 is axiomatic; H2 is reasonable. H3??? Well...

From these hypotheses he reasoned that the total loss of wealth in the US Economy caused by the real estate bust was due to an increase ownership of the government in the US economy.He stated that this was a fact that had been observed in many other countries including China India, Brazil. The more government retreated from the economy the more aggregate wealth increased.

First of all I have to tip my hat to him for sticking his neck out there and saying something that stirred strong emotions.

However, I was really surprised that such an eminent and seasoned scholar would make such an extraordinary dubious claim as in H3 and back it with such little evidence in a keynote speech.

The most compelling evidence to disprove this argument is a comparison of loss of wealth in the US during the dot com bust and the real estate bust. The dot com bust occurred in an environment where more laiseez faire, welfare reform arguments were the dominant philosophy with the repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act, the incoming republican administration and all that.The real estate bust in 2007 triggered a more aggressive government interventionist posture in the real economy. For a comparison, I turn to Jeffrey D. Benson of the blog American MacroEconomic Dynamism:

"How much wealth has actually been destroyed in the current housing decline versus the 2001 tech burst? According to the Case Shiller Indices (the most accurate housing guage available) In 2006, the value of U.S. residential real estate totaled US$ 22.4 trillion. Since this recording the national pricing indices (based on 20 metropolitan areas) has decline 19.87%. This is a loss of asset valuation equal to $4.5 Trillion. To put this loss into perspective, according to the International Monetary Fund the U.S. Gross Domestic Product in 2007 was 13.8 Trillion. So is this decline in value a direct hit to the Net Worth of the United States. Absolutely. If the value of liabilities declined proportionally to asset price then the answer would be no, but they clearly do not. The United States has significantly overstated it's wealth. Sound familiar?

In 2001 the Dot.com bubble was another significant overstatement of wealth. The Nasdaq Composite Index is a market capitalization weighted index of more than 5000 stocks. Comprising all Nasdaq-listed common stocks, it is the most commonly used index for tracking the Nasdaq. The Dow Jones Wilshire 5000 Total Market Index represents the broadest index for the U.S. equity market, measuring the performance of all U.S. equity securities with readily available price data. No other index comes close to offering its comprehensiveness. For comparison, the NASDAQ listed securities compose 19% of the 5000 Total Market Index. The Market Capitalization of the Dow Jones Wilshire 5000 Full Cap was $16.7 Trillion as of April 30, 2008. Comparatively, the market cap at the end of Q1 in 2000 was approximately $16 trillion (only slightly smaller). However, between 2000 Q1 and Q1 2003 the index lost a stunning 43% of its valuation. In other words, $7.1 Trillion of wealth was lost."

In order to make a statement on China, the proxy by which a comparison would be made is India. Here again In China, we have state capitalism and a government controlled economy. India has a more liberal democratic tradition. So far China has outperformed India year after year for the past 3 decades.

In Russia, the failure of liberalization policies of the early 1990s led to the strong state reassertion and state capitalism under Putin with popular support.

In Africa in the late 80s and 1990s, the IMF liberal orthodoxy led to the crumbling of national welfare in so many economies...

And on and on and on....

How could such a respected scholar and from all appearances a nice and sound minded person make such a claim, I am still scratching my head...


As I have made the case many times before in my BICs book and Knol collection and blogs, the role of government is bound to increase as population density increase, and this is due to what I have called the holistic theorem.



References:
The 2010 IAFE Annual Conference

Housing Bubble vs. Tech Bubble Loss of Wealth in Dollars denominated terms by Jeffrey D. Benson of the blog American MacroEconomic Dynamism

On Financial Reform :Regulation Vs. Size of Banks, A false dichotomy?

The debated on financial reform as summarized by Krugman in his latest piece in the NYT seems to have boiled down to the Volker position of limiting the size of financial institutions so that they do not reach a too big to fail size or the position of Krugman of tight and generalized regulation of Banks and shadow banks.

It seems to me that both analysis miss the simple but central ingredient needed to secure the financial system while not impending economic growth and that is a centralized clearing of all trades. Centralized clearing by nature remove a lot of the incentives in the buildup of too big to fail financial entities, it brings a level of transparency that all times gives regulator a clear picture of the dangers in the positions taken by financial/ economic actors.

A simple example to illustrate the power of centralized counterparty on trades. When you go online to buy an item or at the to a store and you use a credit card, that transaction is facilitated and secured by the existence of a centralized counterparty who keeps track of your assets and liabilities and authorize the transaction only when you have enough credit. No party to the transaction takes credit risk on the other and the system is robust. If the same worked among financial trading institutions the same efficiency and security would be gained, eliminating much of the systemic risks that are the source of current concerns.

See:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/02/opinion/02krugman.html?src=me&ref=general


The Holistic Theorem

Too Big to Fail

See more presentations by kongtcheu | Upload your own PowerPoint presentations

Unity of Purpose

See more presentations by kongtcheu | Upload your own PowerPoint presentations

Op-Ed Columnist - No, It’s Not About Race - NYTimes.com

Op-Ed Columnist - No, It’s Not About Race - NYTimes.com: "For example, for generations schoolchildren studied the long debate between Hamiltonians and Jeffersonians. Hamiltonians stood for urbanism, industrialism and federal power. Jeffersonians were suspicious of urban elites and financial concentration and believed in small-town virtues and limited government. Jefferson advocated “a wise and frugal government” that will keep people from hurting each other, but will otherwise leave them free and “shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.”"

This Hamiltonian Vs. Jeffersonians divide which has recently been stated as Blue Vs. Red states is a very rational behavior even though it does not seem so a priori and can be explained via population density and the holistic theorem: The more concentrated a population, the more it makes sense for it to seek government intermediation. The more people there are, the more government intervention makes sense, on a linear cost bringing in quadratic benefits basis.

New Stimulus ? No Stimulus?

Bruce Bartlett, a former treasury dept economist has an article in the FT titled "We do not need a second stimulus plan"

He explains that because really stimulative programs that were part of the stimulus would only stimulate much later, there is no basis for declaring the stimulus plan passed earlier in the year was insufficient and that we need a new one.

Indeed Krugman has held a different view for a long time. So I just checked his blog and there is an entry on the article titled "Bruce Bartlett misstates the problem"

he points out the statement:

"The problem is that the Obama administration was much too optimistic about how quickly stimulus spending would affect the economy. Christina Romer, chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, chief economist to vice president Joe Biden, forecast in January that the stimulus would reduce unemployment almost immediately."

and points that it is inaccurate.While this may be factually true, it seems to me it does little to invalidate the central argument Mr. Bartlett is actually making.

I wish there would be more Krugman substantiation of the statement: "The problem, instead, is that the hole the stimulus needs to fill is much bigger than predicted."

I would be very interested in finding data quantifying the scope of shovel ready projects with large multiplier effects.

As I have written elsewhere projects with network effects as described in my holistic theorem would have the biggest stimulative impact, possibly at the lowest cost.

These include
-network infrastructure projects such as roads and bridges, in particular near housing developments (These would help support prices of houses in those areas by making the developments more easily accessible to urban work areas)
- internet infrastructure development projects
-electrical/smart grid development projects
-Financial Services central clearing

The question to me is how many(number and budget) can be moved along, on what timeframe,



07/09/09 - Here's the WSJ survey of economists on the question:

FT.com / Comment / Opinion - Economists clash on shifting sands

FT.com / Comment / Opinion - Economists clash on shifting sands
The neo-classical vs. neo-liberal debate as being framed here between Ferguson and Krugman has always struck by the fact that none of these positions provides clear analytic means for deciding when to decide where government (or central counterparty) action is judicious and when it is not.

While Krugman might be right at this moment, blind acceptance of his prescriptions may lead to trouble at other times.

It it is why I see my piece on the holistic theorem, despite its analytic relative simplicity as crucial in understanding how to decide among these two camps in practical situations such as the present issue of whether or not to adopt centralized clearing of derivatives.

SEE: http://knol.google.com/k/phil-kongtcheu/the-holistic-theorem/24v2kgtuvzk2v/16

Op-Ed Contributor - The G.D.P. Question - NYTimes.com

Op-Ed Contributor - The G.D.P. Question - NYTimes.com

I liked the data rich nature of this piece on comparative government spending as a share of GDP.

His point taken, I wonder why he did not discuss the possibility of government continuing to to provide the same level of service while reducing the cost of these services as is currently being suggested for shifting the balance of cost towards preventive health care that will substantially reduce curative costs down the road. Krugman's piece today seems to show that is where the gov't is going.

Where are the statistics showing that European countries spend less on healthcare for better results as as measured by life expectancy? That France has the best health care system of OECD countries?

However one central point that the data provided shows but that the author did not notice is how Government share of GDP is correlated with population density. And this to me is one more illustration of my little holistic theorem applied here:

"The more people participate in a system, the more it makes sense for a central authority to mediate their relationships/communication; No matter what the cost for setting up this central authority, as the number of participants increase, this cost is dwarfed by the benefits of centralized mediation on a linear vs. quadratic basis."

See my proposal for centralized clearing of derivatives that underscores this analysis.

Uploaded on authorSTREAM by kongtcheu