No Need For A Car “Tsar” Or Tariffs

Posted by & filed under Uncategorized.

Concerns over the viability of the Australian automotive industry have escalated in the wake of Ford’s decision to pull out. There have been calls for a return to higher import tariffs, moves to artificially deflate the dollar, and even for appointment of a car ”tsar” to stop the industry from sinking.

Source: Sydney Morning Herald

Where to start with such a blatant display of anti-foreign bias and anti-welfare enhancing trade bias?

The decision about whether or not Australia needs an auto industry is made at the local dealerships.

Over the past few decades, Australian consumers have moved away from buying Holdens and Fords.

For consumers at the top end of the market, they’ve earned so much money that they’d prefer an Audi or a Range Rover.

For consumers at the bottom end of the market, they’re happy with imported used cars.

For consumers in the middle of the market, they prefer Hyundai and Toyota to Holden or Ford.

If Australian consumers actually wanted an auto industry, they’d ignore the relative cheapness of imported cars and only buy Australian.

They haven’t, so they obviously don’t value having a home grown auto industry.

Politicians who have the interests of their union supporters to look after are happy to use Other People’s Money to prop up a sunset industry.

When it comes to consuming new cars, Australian consumer’s preferences have been revealed.

Share this post with your friends

The Value Of Outreach For Group Thinkers

Posted by & filed under Uncategorized.

The other day Eric Crampton wrote about how the reaction to a pretty tame economics series on CBC was knee-jerk along the lines of “all economics is right-wing propaganda!”.

He writes about how mainstream economics just tells it like it is – when you do X, you get Y because people respond to incentives and that’s just the way the cookie crumbles.

For non-conformists, we forget how important groupthink is to those who would dismiss economics. For most people all that matters is fitting in. There are also a whole host of environmental factors at play here. New Zealand’s economics education from high school through to university level barely reinforces the basics before moving on.

I have noticed, anecdotally, that those most hostile to economic thinking are:

  • those who have had no interaction with the commercial sector in their entire lives or
  • those who grew up wealthy and feel guilt they feel the need to atone for through being “against the man” or
  • those who are scared of mathematics and would argue 1+1=3 if you believe or feel that’s the answer

For those of us who grew up in a household where your parents run a business and you see the ups and downs of the business cycle at the coalface, there is an acute appreciation for how micro behaviour makes sense.

When you are aware of how things like resource consents delay or cancel investment projects, how the administration costs of employing people create friction in the labour market, why decisions are made at the margin (potential project by potential project) and how credit risk needs to be constantly managed in the face of incentives faced by creditors it isn’t that hard to see how economics explains and helps you understand how the real world works.

This is where I’d like to bring in Arnold Kling’s theory that he wrote about in The Three Languages Of Politics.

His model of political discourse is called the Three-Axes Model. He argues that libertarians, progressives and conservatives “talk past each other” because they are speaking different languages that view the world through completely different lens.

Conservatives emphasise the civilisation-barbarism axis. Libertarians emphasise the freedom-coercion axis. Progressives emphasise the oppressed-oppressor axis.

People who care about different things will demonise different categories of people differently.

Because everyone “picks their sources” depending on which columnists or bloggers reflect their particular worldview, you end up with an ironic situation where economists of different persuasions either ignore or misrepresent mainstream economics to suit their particular narrative. Paul Krugman < Thomas Sowell, for example.

Bringing the dismissal of economics back into the frame, accepting empirically provable concepts that are in conflict with your dominant axis not only threatens your belief system that you have invested in emotionally and socially, if you come around to a different view your view is no longer that of the dominant group.

Many people are weak. They simply do not have the stomach to hold contrarian views that are out of tune with what the dominant group thinks. They are the enablers of populist despots and “mainstream politicians” alike.

This is one of the reasons why words matter as much as the group think about that issue. Try convincing a progressive that the minimum wage oppresses people wanting to negotiate their own wages.

The value of outreach for group thinkers is therefore low because we are asking people to re-examine their worldview. Some people still think the earth is flat.

This is reflected in the median voter theorem, where policies in society will tend towards the preferences of the median voter.

Increasing the level of economic thinking in New Zealand is a pipe dream, sadly.

The dominant political narrative restricts the sources of information many New Zealanders consume when it comes to news and opinion, that’s if they consume anything other than Super 15 and My Kitchen Rules!

The cost of being an informed voter / citizen might be substantially higher than we have thought in the past.

Most people care deeply about what other people think of them. They are obsessed with their in-group status – and political opinions matters a lot in many circles.

Their weaker amygdalas physically panic when they are exposed to differing views.

Think about reading reactions like “I listened to [right wing economist] and my pulse started racing and I had to leave the room!” and wondering “whaaat?”.

As time progresses, I am leaning more and more towards Bryan Caplan’s suggestion to “build a bubble” that insulates you from the world.

Share this post with your friends

Making Stuff Is Expensive

Posted by & filed under Uncategorized.

Making physical stuff is expensive.

Ford in Australia, after decades of protectionism and subsidies, has finally decided that the stuff it makes is too expensive. From 2016 about 1200 people will no longer have jobs in the auto industry.

When you add in the fact that Ford vehicles are expensive to make relative to vehicles made in Korea and Japan, you have to wonder why people haven’t gotten over worship at the altar of making stuff and exporting stuff.

That golden goose was killed a long time ago when big corporations and big labour realised that they both wanted the same thing from governments all the way from Michigan to Melbourne – as much free stuff they could get.

A special interest group can collaborate and lobby the government because it has fewer relationships to manage. The few win out at the expense of the many. Consumers pay more for cars so union workers earn wages that aren’t justifiable or sustainable.

The poor old taxpayer and average working stiff cannot collaborate and get free stuff because they are buggered from their 40-50 hours a week working hard to pay the taxes that pay for the free stuff.

Making stuff is expensive, and only companies that can turn a profit making expensive stuff should be operating.

If they need “special rules” or “special subsidies” or “special trade criteria for competing goods” then they shouldn’t be in business.

New Zealand is fortunate that our cut throat manufacturing sector has killed off the bad businesses and let the ones who actually deliver high value to consumers survive and thrive even in the face of a high NZD.

Australia is less fortunate, because the ALP scandal in New South Wales at present is showing anyone who can look on the ICAC website that big business, big developers and big labour are really good mates, mate.

Let’s be honest – the only people who will miss Australian car manufacturers are the sort of people who care about whether they are “Ford” or “Holden”.

They obviously didn’t want to support Ford or Holden enough when the relative price of a Toyota or Hyundai made it financially stupid to “buy local”.

Price theory can explain all of this, but don’t expect someone who thinks this is a terrible day for Australia to take the time to learn basic economics.

Share this post with your friends

Why More Kiwisaver Advertising Is A Good Thing

Posted by & filed under Uncategorized.

I have been noticing a lot more Kiwisaver advertising recently. This is a good thing.

Wait, what? How can advertising be a good thing? Doesn’t it persuade us to do things we shouldn’t because we are weak and powerless individuals? *

Advertising is a way of getting information about valuable products and services to the marketplace.

Without advertising, we are fumbling around in the darkness. Because we have no brands or products to connect with different things we need in our grocery shop, it could conceivably take hours to get around your local Countdown or New World.

More Kiwisaver advertising is a sign of a developed market. Firms are prepared to spend money on advertising.

Because advertising is a sunk cost – once it is spent it can’t be recovered – a firm will only advertise when it believes that it will earn a return on that advertising.

Advertising in the age of Google triggers searches for product information, comparing prices with other potential suppliers and reading product reviews.

It directly enhances the price discovery process because firms have to differentiate their product offerings somehow – either cosmetically or substantially.

As the Kiwisaver industry develops, firms will need to ensure that their fees and services available to Kiwisaver members are competitive.

The differences between firms can be highlighted in rival’s advertising, so the process of competition and comparison in advertising acts as a “mic check” on competitors claims.

I’d be really worried if there wasn’t Kiwisaver advertising – firms would be revealing that they think Winston Peters will seize everyone’s Kiwisaver accounts.

* Some people actually believe this.

Share this post with your friends

Bundling Pay Television Enhances Consumer Welfare

Posted by & filed under Uncategorized.

This video from Alex Tabarrok and the MR University course on Media Economics offers up some good points about why bundling pay television enhances consumer welfare.

He points out that consumers think that “I pay $100 / month for 100 channels so if I could just choose 3-4 channels my pay television bill would be just $3-4″.

This is clearly not the case. The high fixed costs of purchasing content, maintaining a distribution network and splitting the cost of boxes over their useful lives all have to be recovered from the consumer.

Therefore, if John McCain’s bill to force cable TV providers to provide a-la-carte options so ESPN subscribers can just get ESPN while forgoing “paying for something they don’t watch”, the most likely outcome is that ESPN will cost closer to $100 a month!

He also points out the different business models in buying music. You can subscribe to Spotify or Pandora and pay a fixed monthly fee for essentially unlimited, legal music.

The alternative is micropayments through the iTunes store. Micropayments incur higher transaction costs than a monthly subscription fee. iTunes even bunches multiple purchases into a single payment processing transaction to lower their costs of getting paid for $1.79 a track music!

Bundling pay television enhances consumer welfare but consumers don’t realise it – if they were forced to pay for individual channels it is unlikely they would pay less in aggregate.

Consumers hardly win whenever regulators attempt to fiddle with consumer welfare.

There are alternative ways for internet savvy people to enhance their welfare if a pay television provider isn’t giving them what they’re willing to pay for, namely cancelling their subscription and getting a US VPN or billing address.

Share this post with your friends

Book Review: The AIG Story by Maurice R. Greenberg

Posted by & filed under Uncategorized.

The problem with a population that doesn’t read widely is that they take whatever they hear on the news or read from their favourite columnist and repeat it verbatim. There is no critical examination of the facts, and because hardly anyone reads widely, they cannot plug new information into a matrix of what they have already learned and retained.

American Insurance Group was one of the most savaged brands in the aftermath of the global financial crisis. The New York Federal Reserve and US Treasury, with Tim Geithner and Hank Paulson at the helm decided to use AIG as a way to transfer tens of billions of dollars to Wall Street banks and other counterparties of AIG’s Financial Products division.

The popular narrative is that AIG was a corrupt company. This book is an attempt by the CEO and man who grew it from $100 million in revenue in the 1960′s to over $800 billion in assets in 2008 – Maurice “Hank” Greenberg – to set the record straight. It is written by Lawrence Cunningham after a lot of research and interviews. As always, it is more revealing when you learn who did not want to give an interview to an author than who actually did.

The book starts from the beginning with a clear explanation of how AIG played an important role in the globalisation of financial services and had a “profit center” mentality. Each individual underwriting unit was expected to earn a profit on its own. This was distinct from many insurance companies that simply lowered their premiums below the market rate to gain market share at the expense of higher loss rates.

Greenberg and his executives achieved very low expense ratios and loss ratios relative to the rest of the insurance industry. After he was forced to resign profit margin went from 16% to below 4%. Under his leadership AIG became a behemoth because they really were the best. They were using advanced actuarial stuff before anyone else, their senior executives had no employment contracts so were always incentivised to outperform and their long-term interests were tied to AIG because a separate company, SICO, owned a massive chunk of AIG shares that eligible AIG employees only received when they hit 65.

I am familiar with how the derivatives market works. When financial institutions trade between one another, many can do so on the back of their AAA or AAA- credit rating. They don’t even need to post collateral. The downfall of AIG came from a reduced credit rating and abandoning a policy under Greenberg of always “laying off the risk” in derivatives trades by hedging each position and therefore making a margin on what they received in premiums on a product and paid out in premiums to other firms.

In essence, before Greenberg’s departure, AIG ran their derivatives business properly with strong risk management controls. But after his departure they entered into more than $80 billion dollars of unhedged exposure. There was a massive legal wrangle over accounting inanities and at the heart of it all was former New York governor Eliot Spitzer. Yeah, that hypocrite who went after Wall Street while simultaneously engaging in (at least in the USSA) illegal activity with high end escorts.

Then, a phrase came up that immediately gave me flashbacks to a book I read about Conrad Black. The “corporate governance” mafia were responsible for the downfall of AIG. Experienced insurance and banking industry stalwarts were forced off the board in the name of “independence” and effectively hijacked a successful firm from people who knew what they were doing to people with no insurance or even financial experience.

This “corporate governance” scheme involves reforming management and the board of directors of a corporation to serve the interests of the independent directors. The interests of the shareholders, executives and employees are tertiary. The primary goal of the corporate governance movement is to enable a cottage industry of law firms, “corporate governance experts” and accountants to make enormous sums of money leeching off successful corporations.

Immediately, I plugged what I was reading into the matrix of what I have read about “corporate governance” over the years. The downfall of AIG all made sense. When you replace people who managed risk for a living, with people whose biggest risk in life was whether to attend Harvard or Yale for law school, you sure as hell will have poor oversight.

And at AIG that’s exactly what happened. The executive committee of 4 top directors that met almost weekly as a way of ensuring oversight of big decisions and risks in between full board meetings was abandoned. There was “no one in charge” and the corporation devolved into factional infighting. The board of directors was so concerned with destroying Hank Greenberg it did not take any steps to monitor risk at AIG Financial Products.

While at some points in the book it was clear that Hank Greenberg is a very American-style CEO, the parallels with Conrad Black (charged with $400M embezzlement, convicted on $285,000, destroyed in order to let corporate governance types bilk Hollinger International) were completely uncanny. The pettiness and immorality of these leeches of the boardroom is amazing.

What is even more disturbing is that basic economics tells us that Greenberg, as largest shareholder of AIG and heir of C.V  Starr, had the strongest incentives to protect AIG shareholders, employees and customers. The directors that were not former executives of AIG and associated companies had tenuous incentives – their fees, some restricted stock and “prestige”. They were “captured” by outside counsel that saw a massive opportunity to bill AIG tens of millions of dollars in legal fees.

When all of the AIG legal and accounting fees are added up, over $1 billion was spent sacrificing AIG at the altar of corporate governance. And this was before the US used AIG as a bailout conduit where derivatives counterparties were paid out at 100 cents on the dollar when market conditions made it obvious that discounts were acceptable settlements of AIG Financial Products’ liabilities.

I recommend you read this book as an antidote to the anti-AIG propaganda that the media have repeated ad-nauseam. The dodgy executives at AIG were only enabled to do what they did because the corporate governance movement hobbled their in-house risk control mechanisms in the pursuit of “good governance practise”.

If that hadn’t happened, all of the losses would have been borne by those who knew the risks – the shareholders. Instead, a weak board of directors let the Fed and the Treasury hijack their company and use it as a bailout conduit. You should buy a copy of The AIG Story this weekend. It’s a compelling tale of what happens when people don’t stand up to legalistic bullies.

Share this post with your friends

Why Budget 2013 Doesn’t Matter

Posted by & filed under Uncategorized.

In a short time, Bill English will stand up in Parliament and deliver his Budget Speech.

For the temporary government (that’s the guys some of us elect every 3 years), the Budget is the highlight of the year.

It is a chance for them to show that they’re doing something to fix all of the problems in the economy.

For the permanent government, the Budget is the lowlight of the year.

It is when elected officials get to upset the slow, glacial growth of the permanent government in Wellington.

The incentives faced by a bureaucrat are diammetrically opposed to those of a politician.

The goal is to increase your department’s funding, prestige, size or regulatory powers.

This is why Budget 2013 doesn’t matter – because it will not change a single thing in government.

It won’t fix our schools that turn out illiterate and innumerate dropouts year after year without consequence.

And it won’t deliver any substantive policy initiatives that will fix supply side problems in the economy.

The pipe dream of the retirement age increasing from 65 is just that – a pipe dream.

I’ll be watching, but skeptical that anything will change. The central planning fallacy lives on for the inhabitants of Gosplan-on-Bowen.

Share this post with your friends

Perspective On NZX Market Capitalisation

Posted by & filed under Uncategorized.

This morning I was listening to Bloomberg Radio.

Pimm Fox and Carol Massar were talking about a US company.

The quote was something like:

This company only has a market cap of like, $1 billion, $1.5 billion, so it’s tiny right?

It was a fascinating perspective on NZX Market Capitalisation – just over $76 billion at yesterday’s close.

It also shows what possibilities there are if NZ companies take advantage of globalisation to scale up and have “not tiny” market capitalisations.

If you have an interest in the US perspective on financial news, I’d recommend downloading the Bloomberg Radio app for your phone.

Of course, as a technology savvy consumer, I’d only run it when I’m at work (wi-fi), at university (wi-fi) or home (wi-fi!).

If you’ve always got access to wi-fi, and rarely travel, why would you need an expensive mobile phone contract with bonus data?

Share this post with your friends

End Irrigation Subsidies For Dairy Farmers

Posted by & filed under Uncategorized.

The NBR this morning has an article that doesn’t include any commentary, but tells us that “without local council and government subsidies, irrigation projects couldn’t go ahead”. (PAID)

The dairy farming industry is a business, and as such should bear the costs of capital projects that primarily benefit their business interests. Statistics New Zealand recently released a document that shows that more irrigated land leads to higher agricultural production.

This is a good thing! More agricultural production is wonderful. But how can an industry be profitable or an efficient use of resources if it relies on subsidies to finance irrigation projects that primarily benefit agriculture?

Some ratepayers are more equal than others – farmers pay higher rates but receive disproportionately higher benefits in the form of capital projects they contribute to at a rate far below what they would have to if the irrigation projects were financed by more targeted rates levies.

With a low rate of return on assets, the deification of the agricultural industry as some reality-defying, economic principle-bending, accounting standards-reinterpreting “special case” is insane. It is even more insane when you realise that banks are lowering their agricultural debt exposure (finally!) because they are aware that high commodity prices won’t last forever.

Irrigation subsidies for dairy farmers and other agricultural enterprises are inefficient. Industries should rise and fall on their merits, not because they are able to engage in capital gains farming on the back of other ratepayers who will never have the opportunity to benefit from asset-price inflation.

If local councils wanted to more efficiently allocate the cost of these irrigation schemes, they could monitor production and profitability of agricultural enterprises in their district and increase rates proportionally to recover the massive risk of borrowing to finance a capital project at the peak of a commodities boom.

It is unlikely that the hysteria of the farming special interest groups will be muted by reasonable analysis of the facts. Therefore, expect Think Big (Milk Solids Edition) to progress without interference from people with a clear understanding of how special interest groups can shift the risk of large capital projects onto “everyone else” by claiming that the “benefits to the community” offset the cost of the higher rates and opportunity cost of what the local councils could have spent on what the people of their districts may want.

Over at Whaleoil a few months ago, Cameron Slater said my comment on a Hawke’s Bay irrigation scheme was the Comment of The Day. For your reading pleasure I’ll reproduce it here:

If the farming sector is so productive and profitable, or would be made so by this dam, why do they need to get every other ratepayer to chip in?

If they really needed it, and weren’t just looking for a handout they’d write the cheque themselves.

The farming sector’s return on assets is dismal. If it wasn’t for capital gains and the tens of billions of dollars banks can’t afford to write down on agricultural debt the loans would have been called in years ago.

Interest cover ratios are abysmal in agriculture.

As for sports stadiums, the economic literature and real world experience is clear they are a waste of money.

There is no difference between saddling Hawke’s Bay ratepayers with a $600 million “productivity enhancing” boondoggle and Dunedin ratepayers $200 million stadium for a rugby union that traded while insolvent.

Both force higher rates in the long term for something they might not even benefit from.

Just look at the Mangawhai sewerage system stuff up!

This stuff is the depressing side of economics. We know that something is clearly wrong, but there is simply no way short of a meritocratic dictatorship that would lead to sensible policy like making industries internalise the cost of capital projects that primarily benefit their bottom lines while imposing costs on everyone else.

Share this post with your friends

The Search For Yield

Posted by & filed under Uncategorized.

The effect of quantitative easing on asset yields is clear. When central banks buy bonds and other private sector assets, they bid up the price and push the yield down.

Last week, junk bonds in the United States dropped below 5% yield. This is because when almost every other asset class has a low yield, anything with a higher yield will be purchased by those who need to own assets with yield.

Pension funds in the United States have substantial unfunded liabilities becaused they are “defined benefit” retirement schemes. These corporations, states and unions made promises to their members. They have suffered investment losses and thus need to earn more than the market is currently offering if they want to have any hope of reaching the level of assets needed to deliver on promises made in the past.

The search for yield in the current low interest rate environment presents a whole new level of risk. Higher yields are traditionally linked to higher credit risk if we are talking about bonds. But if high risk bonds suddenly become low yield as a second-order effect of quantitative easing, then there is effectively a mis-pricing of risk.

What this does is create a dilemma for the bond markets. If lower yields let more bonds into the “lower risk” screen, and pension funds can purchase these bonds because at a lower yield “they’re less risky”, and corporates like Apple can issue bonds to return cash to shareholders, what happens when interest rates rise eventually?

Private sector demand for credit has not recovered from the global financial crisis. We have no way of knowing how dramatic the change in interest rates could be if demand shocks or supply shocks flow through to demand for credit and end up performing what the central banks have failed to do with quantitative easing.

Thus, the search for yield is a double-edged sword that runs the risk of capital writedowns if interest rates rise. If they rise dramatically, or central banks end quantitative easing abruptly, we could find ourselves in another money market liquidity crisis because a lot of borrowing uses bonds as collateral for repo transactions and the like.

Share this post with your friends