<
[Welcome Charles R. Morris and Host, Nomi Prins - bev]
The Sages: Warren Buffett, George Soros, Paul Volcker, and the Maelstrom of Markets
The highly prolific and wonderful author, Charles R, Morris has written 12 books, including the recent New York Times Bestseller, The Trillion Dollar Meltdown, which just won the 2009 Loeb Prize for best business book, and its revised paperback version, The Two Trillion Dollar Meltdown. His book, The Cost of Good Intentions was selected a best book of 1980 by the New York Times. The Coming Global Boom was a New York Times notable book of 1990, and The Tycoons was selected a Barron’s best book of 2005. A lawyer and former banker, Morris’ articles have appeared in numerous publications including the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and The Atlantic Monthly.
His new book, The Sages: Warren Buffett, George Soros, Paul Volcker, and the Maelstrom of Markets is perfectly titled. For it is the wisdom of this trio, throughout tumultuous times, that Morris so expertly depicts. The Sages is also a very compelling read that combines vivid history,individual philosophy and market strategy stemming from observation and experience, rather than theory.
Morris brilliantly draws each man’s unique perspective on the markets, as manifested from their past, personal code of ethics, ability to remain level-headed in periods of financial chaos, and talent for seeing beyond the models and theories of the herd to adapt their own practical, often bold, style.
Perhaps the strongest link between these men and Morris’ own beliefs is the shared knowledge that market theorists, economists in particular, get it wrong most of the time. The book opens and closes with the observation that almost all (well, 99.9%) of the traditional market economists are wrong in their predictions about the economy. Morris offers a sobering statistic in the first page of his book: only one of 51 top economists ranked by the Wall Street Journal even had the sign as to what 2008 GDP would be, right. That means 50 out of 51 of them said it would rise, when it actually fell. A coin flip would be a more accurate predictor.
The respect that Morris has for these men is evident throughout the book. The chapters on George Soros and Warren Buffet are especially excellent in their complementary nature. George Soros is the global investor, who bets big on shifting global and currency tides. Warren Buffet is the value investor, who shirks classical ideas of portfolio diversification as being key to the best investment strategy, choosing instead to invest in a smaller number of companies in which he has solid knowledge, over the long-term. Morris shows that though their methods differ, each man marches to the beat of his own drum, has requisite patience, doesn’t do things he doesn’t understand, and is deeply critical of the methods and machinations of Wall Street.
In a riveting passage in the Buffet chapter, Morris writes of how Buffet came to take the helm of the once prestigious investment bank, Salomon Brothers, as it was engulfed in a scandal of its own making. The firm, disgraced by having rigged its participation in Treasury note auctions, needed a leader to regain respect. Warren was brought in, but hated the job. Equally, he disdained the entitlement and money that Salomon’s employees felt they deserved.
There is something instructive in studying these men at this time. What’s most interesting is despite their considerable wealth and trading prowess, they are not despised. Because they have the same disdain for the callousness that prevails Wall Street as we do. Of course, they also received their rightful share of critical scrutiny, which Morris fairly describes rather than choosing to depict these men as market deities. Soros took much heat for his role in bringing down the British Pound in the early 1990s, and Buffet was embroiled in an SEC investigation regarding his over-paying (uncharacteristic for him) for a chunk of the California savings and loan bank, Wesco.
Morris provides explanations of each man’s remedies for this crisis. Soros’ ideas for fixing our problems are well laid and quite relevant given this week’s congressional hearings on derivatives, he believes that credit default swaps should be banned, not merely moved to regulated exchanges, as Obama’s current financial proposals suggest. Morris tells us why Buffet is uncomfortable speaking about regulation. Buffett finds value over the long term, a philosophy that lives to some extent, outside of regulation, so he avoids the topic.
As for former Fed chairman, Paul Volcker – you can tell that he holds a special place in Morris’ esteem. In contrast with William Greider’s description of Volcker as succumbing to the Milton Friedman School of free-market monetarist economists who were pushing Volker to shift money supply to reduce inflation, Morris shows Volcker did things his own way.
Volcker did indeed adjust money supply to assuage them, but, according to Morris whose investigations led him to related FOMC transcripts showing this, he mostly stuck to the standard Fed tools of manipulating short-term interest rates. And, he was ultimately (though it took several years) successful in this strategy.
More recently, Volcker had the steadfastness and even at his advanced age, the drive, to be at the helm of his funds during the recent financial crisis, the one that he saw it coming.
Morris’ final chapter opens with a statement revisiting the sheer ineffectiveness of market economists and their predictions with a sentence that made me laugh out loud. Morris writes, “My impression has long been that macro-economic forecasts are nearly useless.” He provides proof to that belief through the examination of the White House’s Council of Economic Advisors economic forecasts over the past decade. The results aren’t good. This makes you very worried that the ‘brightest lights of the economic profession’ as Morris refers to them, have so much influence over the policy that impacts our economy.



151 Comments












Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Charles, Welcome to the Lake.
Nomi, Thank you for Hosting today’s Book Salon.
Good evening or afternoon everybody – depending on your time zone.
I am honored to be hosting this event for the magnificent author, Charles Morris on his new book, The Sages.
Mr Morris, welcome.
Mr. Morris,
With all the turmoil in the financial markets, and the unfolding crisis that has dragged down the general economy, what made you decide to offer the collective wisdom of these three men at this particular moment?
Welcome Nomi! And welcome Charles. So good to have you here.
Volker has been very much in the background of the administration — do you think he feels comfortable there? Or is it an awkward fit?
Welcome to the Lake, both of you.
Any chance the Obama Administration will listen to any Sage advice?
Charles,
Isn’t the fundamental economic issue today — strong dollar vs. weak dollar?
Does not all else economically follow from this issue?
He won’t say anything about such things, of course. My impression was that he felt a bit marginalized at first, but does feel that he’s being taken seriously as an adviser. Which is a good thing for all of us.
Charles,
You begin the book talking about how awful the forecasts and models of the mainstream economists have turned out to be in predicting this crisis, both Soros and Buffett have made a career bucking the theories, what hope is there that this administration will try to implement more practical ways to curtail current and future problems?
Nomi, I have your upcoming book ordered. Your chat with Jane a few months ago was really helpful and accessible.
Charles, I am a very proud owner of your “Trillion Dollar Meltdown.” It is a beautifully written model of insight and accessibility. Congratulations on the Loeb award. I wouldn’t have known about it, had it not been for the FDL book salon. I’ll be purchasing your latest after a couple more budget cycles.
Great to have you both back at the lake.
That everything turns on strong dollar vs weak dollar is both true and too simple. The status of the dollar is more of a symptom than an objective. If we get our house in order, we won’t have to worry about the dollar, even if its international role declines — which in my view would be a good thing. If we don’t change our ways, the dollar is likely to fall — how soon I don’t know — which will help force us to take the same medicine we’ve been prescribing for everyone else.
Good afternoon Mr Morris and Ms Prins and welcome to FDL
Mr Morris, I have not had a chance to read your book but do have a question.
Why do you think the Wall St folks seem to, if not denigrate, then ignore so much of the wisdom of folks like Buffet, Soros, and Volcker? Is it just jealousy or do they think that be ignoring them, no one else will pay any attention? (It seems like the 3 do have a clue but like many of the economists like Krugman, no one wants to admit they are correct)
Or I might be an idiot.
I am curious what Mr. Morris’ take is on George Soros’ involvement with Boris Berezovsky during the 1990’s looting of Russia, and along those lines, what he thinks of Larry Summers, who also played a role? No worries if this is too far off-topic to address right now, but I do think Soros is a dirty player.
Thanks. It’s my pleasure.
Thank you,
The Trillion Dollar Meltdown was just awarded the 2009 Loeb Prize for best business book – it’s the business and finance industry’s equivalent of the Pulitzer. Congratulations to Charles!
Welcome Nomi and Charles.
I wanted to start by thanking you for a well-written book–it’s not jargony at all.
Wall Street was caught up in a frenzy of money-making for most of the last decade, and these three guys say it’s nonsense, even tho Nobel-winning economists are lining up to say it’s the best of all worlds. (I’m thinking of Lucas, not Krugman.) And now Wall Street’s been proven wrong — and who likes to listen to people who have been correct in pointing out that you’re a fool?
Thank you.
I’m part way through the book. ANd as I read it I found myself recalling arguments about pragmatism I had just after Obama’s inauguration. Obama’d like to claim to be a real pragmatist–as I think you depict these three–but he’s surrounded by ideologues.
Can you say a bit on the role of pragmatism in the success of these three men?
You mention how Soros warned of the dangers of the 1980s ‘mergermania’ in the financial industry – which would render our economy too finance-driven rather than production oriented. Things only got worse after the repeal of Glass Steagall in 1999. Why do you think no one in Washington is addressing this concentration risk. Do you think Soros would advocate decreasing the size of too-big-to-fail banks?
Soros got badly hurt in his Russian ventures. His version, which does seem to jibe with reality, is that he really believed they had turned a corner into capitalism. Didn’t trust them, but thought they were motivated by making money, and would behave accordingly. Then he found out that they were really still in the old Gang mode. Cared about gang v gang, not market capitalism. He lost a ton.
Sir, did you discover that their individual personalities and character were most significant in what they have become in the financial world or is it intellectual ideas and eagerness to listen & observe?
He’s said, if something’s too big to fail, you just make it smaller. At the same time, he’s a realist as far as bailouts go. Biggest or not, banks will inevitably be bailed out or otherwise coddled so as not to disrupt the machinery. Therefore they ALWAYS have to be kept on very tight reins.
They’re very different people. What attracted me to them was that they were identical in their innate skepticism and common sense. When something’s going so well it’s almost hard to believe, don’t believe it. When you see huge imbalances growing up, and the world’s smartest people say, not to worry, we’re heading for a decade long ’soft landing,’ so no one will get hurt. You know it’s bs. Etc etc.
When Goldman was flailing last Fall, Buffett made a sizeable investment in the firm. This sense of when to invest in a company for compelling terms is one of his main talents. The federal government’s terms of a capital investment at the time were far worse than what Buffett negotiated. Has Buffett ever commented on this disconnect?
Pragmatism as defined as a lack of ideology — yes. An old Irish machine politician once said, ‘I’ve never gone to bed on a theory in my life.’ Common sense — in Buffett’s case backed by extraordinary research — and deep mistrust of the djinns and genies who rule world affairs — always on the lookout for how it will all unwind. That’s solid financial pragmatism.
Volcker is providing advice to the Obama administration through the council of 30, but is there any relationship directly between him and Bernanke – would Volcker ever have extended so many loan facilities to the industry without a clear idea of how or when they would truly be repaid?
All three of these guys seem to have made their money not from being born to it like the rich Elite who get into Harvard on legacy admissions.
Also they perhaps because of their backgrounds do not seem to have subscribed to the apology/justification for being rich which Chicago School of Economics which seems to be by justify anything to get rich without restrictions arguing that the market will protect the consumer by competition in the market place throwing bad products out.
While obviously the Chicago School never heard of Crony Capitalism or Corporate Welfare which in a sense rewards being Connected in the Chicago sense of the word over having the best product or idea.
These guys seem to show that yes in America the cream still rises the best products and ideas can still win.
Now then just how do we convince Warren and George to take Geithner and Summer’s jobs their Country needs them.
I’m very Cool with Krugman and other Lefty Economists getting Geithner and Summer’s jobs if they won’t take them.
Also why do the *cough* business channels not notice that the guys with the best track record of success, who actually made the most money started from the middle class and not inherited wealth? Why does the Business Media not note they support Democratic Business ideas?
He’s been criticized for it, as a kind of a whitemailer. His first business model was just picking undervalued stocks. His current model still retains much of that, but he understands as Andrew Carnegie also did, that in the land of highly leveraged, the cash stash is king. His insurance business is a model of that strategy. So yes, when leverage has become the issue and great companies, from GE through Goldman, etc. are deleveraging, you have — to switch meanings, a ‘lot of leverage’ and Buffett doesn’t shrink from exploiting it.
I wonder if that innate skepticism and ‘common sense’ are ideal in a financial world or if those qualities are simply of great importance in THIS era when the financial world is so much hot air and salesmanship. Would those qualities have been as sigifnicant in the 1930-1960 era?
They’re obviously intelligent and know their financial world. What other personal qualities do they possess that make them more universally capable? What do they think in common about today’s situation and our political or financial sector business leaders?
I hope Kudlow and Cramer’s rate of successful predictions are noted the Daily Show writers might want to do a sequel:)
As far as I know, he’s never commented on such things; it would be out of character to do so. To be fair, in the mid-1980s, be bailed out a bunch of banks, changed lots of rules. Paid off Continental Illinois depositors regardless of FDIC limits, so as not to spook the market.
Any numbers on the blogs Right, Left, in the Middle on their numbers? Joe Biden claims the White House got the economic model wrong.
I know that we were a bit closer to the truth maybe Joe should hire us.
Soros and Buffett don’t possess that same sense of entitlement that many of today’s Wall Street titans do. Is that the sense you got? Is that something intrinsic to the fact that they largely operated outside of Wall Street’s boundaries, or something to do with the way they went about creating their wealth?
Nomi, just to illustrate your excellent point here:
From the WSJ on Thursday Few Economists Favor More Stimulus
I want us out of the Middle East and BIG cutbacks in defense spending, because the multiplier of that investment is so bad. I’d like Obama/Congress to nationalize the insolvent banks/insurance companies, because imho, they are the biggest leak. I just see them as money launders for the super rich. IMHO, they return no value any way near commensurate with the dollars they soak up via federal loans and guarantees. Since they are the only ones left with any cash, the politicians keep caving into them.
The next most rationale area I see for cutting U.S. spending is the $600 billion we spend on foreign crude oil. I think investment in health care, domestic energy, and a safer, more decentralized food supply makes a lot of sense.
Volcker’s been a hero of mine since his inflation conquest some thirty years ago. Faced hard facts, took unpalatable actions, saved the world. (Reagan’s advisers went nuts, but in at least two crisis points, RR backed him.)
Soros I’d come to know through other writing, and his record, and Buffett’s have stood the test of time as anyone’s ever has. At first I thought they had nothing in common, but it was their skepticism that stood out. Having said that, I would never claim that anyone is always the man for all seasons. In terms of financial advice, both PV and GS have been much more involved in detailed regulatory issues, with roughly similar takes — rein it in — altho I’m sure they don’t agree on everything. Buffett falls back on his faith in the resilience of the country.
OT, iirc on 9/11, both Buffett and Gates stated they would not sell any stock on 9/12.
Reply to Nomi Prins @33 my reply button seems not to work.
Or maybe because they never belonged to the old boys club of mutual back scratching?
The point about models and economists being so wrong, was highlighted to me by Charles during a conversation I had with him about his book. The entire book demonstrates this problem. When I worked on Wall Street, even though I was surrounded by the most credentialed mathematicians, I never understood why, for example, models didn’t take into account the simple notion of liquidity – if no one wants what you’re selling, it has no value. By extension, economic models about the economy are equally flawed – and I learned alot from The Sages about this.
Charles,
Isn’t Obama managing symptoms?
Seems so to me.
There was a bell curve, except for one guy (Jan Hatzius) who essentially called the GDP right, the curve went as I recall from an outlier of about a half percent growth, mean of about 2.5%, and an upper end outlier of 5.4% or something like that. CEA had about the same mean. Federal Reserve districts — there are twelve — had mean forecasts ranging from 1.5% to 2.5%.
When I went back to older CEA forecasts, which are usually a professional consensus kind of thing, they missed all of the dot.com boom. Basically stuck with a forecast that economy’s maximuim growth was 2.5%, shocked three years running when it turned in 4.5%+, then switched to bullish just in time for the collapse.
Charles,
you have a great passage in the end of the Soros chapter about what he’d do to fix this crisis. Everyone on this blog should buy the book, and immediately turn to that section! One of the things Soros says is that we should ban credit derivatives. So, he would not be in favor of yesterday’s statements by Geithner about merely putting them on exchanges?
Reining-in excesses and fraud & such is one thing, but finding ways to enable or stimulate sound economic growth and activity is another.
In their activities they have been primarily (or entirely) speculators (no?). What do the three of them suggest about grounding our economy for the long run? Do they agree with Obama & team or are there some important differences of opinion?
Enjoying the book; have a few questions but will read all comments to catch up first.
In terms of regulation, I saw Jim Kramer was advocating letting SEC enforcement people keep part of whatever they recover. He thought that making them financial bounty hunters might help attract and keep better talent to the SEC. I don’t trust Kramer’s agenda, and I see a lot of potential problems in the implementation, but I’d be interested in anyone’s “take” on the idea.
If we end both wars now and used half the savings to paydown debt the rest for Job Stimulus and National Healthcare would that be enough to strengthen the Dollar and by about how much a guestimate please,
If you or I were president, so would we. All three of my Sages agree with this, I’m pretty sure. You have to stave off disaster if you can by throwing money at the wall if you have to, and in the meantime you start changing the underlying stuff.
For what it’s worth, I’m not too worried about the regulatory stuff. the banks are dead in the water and don’t know it yet. Banking is going to get very, very, dull very soon.
You’re assuming that if something has value there would be a buyer, but that’s not always true. Take for example now, when housing prices are down, but people can’t afford more credit. It’s a stagnant market because something is out of whack.
Soros and, to a lesser extent, Buffett, are financiers, engaged in the same business as the Wall Streeters, playing with money. Guessing about the flow of money isn’t a mark of smarts. Someone will rise to the top, and it isn’t much more than that.
interesting so many of the “professional economists” got it wrong when so many of us “lay people” got it right, ian welch who writes here at the lake and just about everyone who’s written here on the economy got it right, thom hartmann’s predictions were precise, down to each bubble and bubble burst, what caused the bubble and how it would manifest
for years I myself have been saying the “economists” were full of crap claiming we weren’t even in a recession, that we were still in a growth period when it was clear to me (and just about everyone here) that we were demonstratively in a depression
as far as milton, the man was either a moron or a sociopath, I tend toward the sociopathy, while his theory on the fairy tale he called “a free market” might have been believed when he developed it, after it clearly failed time and time when put into practical application, for him to refuse acknowledging the theory was wrong, that moves him to the realm of sociopthy.
there is no such thing as “a free market”, there never was a free market, the very concept is as much a fairy tale as the fairy god mother
the very concpet of a monetary system IS a set of regulations, once you have money you are no longer a “free marketeer”, the very convept of ownership, trade, trade protection, sanctity of contracts”, these are ALL sets of regulations and once you believe in any of those you are no longer a free marketeer
wealth has been re-distributed from those who produce the wealth to those who invest in wealth
this has been going on since reagan and though it’s a slow burn the deep depression our economy enjoys now is directly caused by that redistribution of wealth
the only way to get the economy productive again is to allow those producing wealth to enjoy that wealth they produce
this means we need to reclaim the middle class assets given to the wealthy and put it back where it belongs, to those who produce the wealth in the first place
obama made a HUGE mistake giving assets to the very people responsible for this meltdown in some kind of fantastical theory that since they broke it they can fix it
These are financial guys, no question. And you’re right. financial guys don’t invent new chip making processes or parallel computing or high-carbaon materials. John Rockefeller the first met JP Morgan the first time and wondered what was he so high-and-mighty about. He didn’t really DO anything in JDR’s view.
But good financial guys do bring real value to the table. Part of what’s wrong with the world is that financial guys have become so important, but that’s unfortunately true right now, and we’re going to make the financial sector work for us rather than other way round, better to have people like this on our side.
Is the move from a production to a service and finance economy a sign of a civilization’s decline? Has any civilization come back from this if so how and why?
Once we lose our production economy can we still be a world finance center and a military power?
Just a comment that I also found that passage quite interesting to read in 2009.
Also, the summary of Soros’ Theory of Reflexivity and the theories of Karl Popper (on which it is based) are so well written they’re just a pleasure to read — makes these concepts seem quite ‘obvious’, which just makes it all the more baffling that academics and theoreticians can’t see them.
Right. I got it right with TDM, but it was pretty obvious. What confused people is that it took so long. Lots of people started bear funds in 2005, 2005 and all got murdered.
True, sometimes a buyer can’t or won’t buy something because of constraints besides some market or model idea of value. But, with respect to the $14 trillion of securitized products originated by Wall Street between 2002 and 2007 – the sudden slow-down and then stoppage in buying, meant that leverage received on the back of those assets (sometimes 10 to 1, sometimes 30 or 40 to 1) couldn’t be paid in a timely way. That knock-on effect – having to come up with money to pay borrowing costs when you can’t sell underlying assets – wasn’t built into the models that created those products. And, it was a big driver of the bailout costs.
The problem was that for some years, espousing idiotic theories and ignoring reality could make you gazillions. An amazing era. Still boggles the mind.
What I also find striking in the descriptions is how well these three individuals synthesize vast amounts of information. Perhaps because of their humility, it doesn’t seem to alarm them to see patterns that others don’t seem able to recognize.
Much of their expertise seems based on scouting through copious amounts of information — certainly in Buffett’s case to a striking degree.
Nomi, this was one of many helpful comments you made at FDL back in March Talking Economic Accountability With Nomi Prins
I just wondered if you were still comfortable with the $12 trillion dollar estimate and the balance of the quote.
It was compelling for me, because it so efficiently took a very complex set of data points and made them readily accessible.
Oh, I’ve ranted here endlessly about it.
But I find it heartening to see that you’ve focused on traits and habits of mind that are more ‘carrot’ than stick. These are clearly bright people, but on some levels it’s their seeming emotional breadth and range of life experiences that is quite intriguing to me to read about.
Their beliefs are quite evidently based in their own life experiences. So they seem fairly ‘unshakable’. Or do I misread…?
The modeling was more of an enabling tool. People knew what they were doing. Lots of deniability built in. So the Merrills etc bought sleazy subprime lenders, gave them very tough production quotas and then were shocked, shocked! when it was later revealed what they were doing.
when you say smart financial guys do bring something important to the table you really have to qualify that
most “financial guys” aren’t there to help the economy they’re there to help this quater’s bottom line, that means what they can claim are gains even though those gains come at the expense of value
there are very few “financial guys” that understand that a responsible economy
sometimes meansmost of the times means you sacrifice a huge bottom lineI think the reason the .com boom/bust wasn’t accounted for is that the ground rules changed and the economists couldn’t just change their model in the middle and say, “things change here”. The same happened with the change of Glass-Steagall and the other financial ‘modernizations’ which ‘helped’ us get into the current mess. How could Obama’s economists account for ALL of the moving factors in this puzzle? I don’t think they entirely mis-read the economy. I think the political system can only handle so much change and the ground moving underneath one’s feet makes it difficult to take any steps.
That said, I’m still interested in any ideas from the 3 amigos of the book; especially about any creative new things that might be done.
In the end, there has to be a new public consensus about the economic ideas and how well they’ve worked. It won’t be a perfect discussion since, as I said, some ground-rules changed in the middle. But, we need to have some sense of how we’ll react in the future and how much authority we want to give government to intervene to more than ’support the economy until it gets going again’.
Republicans are agin it, no matter what “it” might be. They see gold in them there polls and they don’t want things fixed.
But, what do financial people think?
well, some time went by, so the number is now more than $13 trillion (but what’s a trillion here or there). I have the spreadsheet bailout breakdown on my site now, as I see it. go to: http://www.nomiprins.com/bailout.html
In Buffett’s case that’s true. Soros is a different animal. He absorbs vast amounts of information, but in some strange intuitive way, not by formal fact- and number-crunching.
All that would happen is the investigators most motivated to work for cash and therefore get promoted would be in the most likely to take a bribe and be in the best position to cover it up.
Pay them more money yes but a straight rate.
you said, “The problem was that for some years, espousing idiotic theories and ignoring reality could make you gazillions. An amazing era. Still boggles the mind.” but, isn’t the administration still ignoring reality, for example in using these same erroneous economists, or models, or whatever to come up with the parameters for the recent bank stress tests – where, for example, the estimate for unemployment in a severe scenario has already been blown through?
Note the striking, ‘hands on’ experience that each of them demonstrate from quite early ages. (It actually synchs with what Malcolm Gladwell writes about in “Outliers” about the development of expertise and ’sixth sense’. Especially George Soros’s backaches ;-))
Yes yes yes, the ground underneath changed and “nobody could foresee all the awful effects”. Of course, the fact that we already knew leverage could get out of hand was conveniently ignored — profits first!. Now we have to regulate…again.
One thing I found fascinating was that a partnership investment bank could ‘go public’ and play with the public’s money and then leverage that. It was monstrous.
Fixing the broken things will still take some time.
The social function of finance is to create liquidity. Pre-bill of exchange, merchants plied from port to port bartering goods. Took years. BoE allowed you take tradeable paper, and trade soared. Etc. the original CMO — collateralized mortgage obligation — was a very useful invention. Guys at Stanford calculated that by mid-90s it saved homeowners $17 billion a year. Reason was that CMOs fit pension investors risk appetites so market and liquidity was greatly increased. As long as they were all prime mortages, they perfomred very well — except a short burst of model-mania in 92 0r 93 that quickly crashed. 4 times out of 5 what is portrayed as an ‘innovation’ is just a trick to evade the rules or cheat someone. But they are real and when they occir are very valuable.
Anything Cramer ever says should be treated with skepticism. But, you bring up a good point regarding pay – people in regulatory agencies get a fraction of what Wall Street people get, and this is definitely a problem.
Charles, would any of these three advocate a better staffing or incentive structure for the SEC and other regulatory bodies?
And if any reader wants a great example of what you are pointing to, it seems to me that the quotes that Charles Morris gives of Buffett’s little nuggets to his investors is a really good example.
A man who can speak in plain English AND make sense!
That was a nice selection of quotations, and really drove home Buffett’s humility, lack of pretense, and good sense.
OT, fwiw
Lenders abandoning foreclosed properties: ‘Walkaway’ properties quickly deteriorate, dragging down borrowers and neighborhoods
Mods, it’s a very long article, so I think I’m well within “fair use.”
charles, I was on my way to my friends back yard bar b q when I saw you were being hosted here at the lake
I pulled over, whipped out my laptop and had to come and dialogue with you and am ever so grateful you are here to discuss economics and your book
sadly I have to get back to my social opointments and must say again
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE AT THE LAKE!
hope to see you again soon
Why isn’t Obaama using your last book to argue we can’t afford 2 wars. Why isn’t Obama using your book to argue our economy can’t afford Private Healthcare and that National Healthcare is Cheaper and Better? Why isn’t Obama using your book to push for more energy efficient homes and cars.
More debt means a weaker Dollar which makes the cost of everything go up no American likes that!
Anything Cramer ever says should be treated with
skepticismLaughter:)
Fixed it for you.
Certainly anyone interested in the modern era, and/or economics!
Yes, I hope that FDLer masaccio sees that — he’s the one who woke me up. Then, I read OP’sM and went, “Aha!”
But the CDOs are such a good example of how Soros can spot cant and ideology that section is a gem. So far, everything that I’ve read is just marvelous. (My son is getting my copy WITH the margin notes, though he doesn’t yet know it…)
True enough. 1/ Personally, I don’t trust Larry Summers. he and Rubin dismantled Glass-Steagall and ensure that bank holding companies would be essentially unregulated.
2/ the ‘right’ answer would have been to wipe out a lot more bank bondholders and nationalize, etc. I believe that Paulson was right not to bail out Lehman, and he wanted to send a message. If you want to come to the fed for a bailout, abandon all hope, because you’re not going to like it.
And it stopped the world on a dime. Who knew about the mutual funds? (They had spent weeks planning for the CDS fallout) doing the ‘right’ thing might have blown up the world bond markets. If you’re an economist or a blogger yhou can say what you want, but when you really can blow up thje world, may only 20% chance, you temporize.
Charles – you have such an elegant pragmatism in the way you write about things that should be done, or should have been done.
From your book: “Without the benefit of modern statistics, and with nary a macroeconomic model to lean on, a Nicholas Biddle, a Walter Bagehot, or any other avatar of the nineteenth-century central banking would have known what to do when their economy foamed up the way ours did. Tuck up interest rates, slow things down, don’t let the trade balances get so far into the hole, rein in government borrowing. It’s just common sense.”
you present this so clearly – why – did no one in control of policy get this?
That may be true of mortgages, especially 15 or 30 year fixed rate mortgages. But what about credit cards? Car leases?
I don’t think the money is that important. Any securities lawyer who goes to the SEC and spends 3-4 years, even if he’s tough, can write his ticket for life, because he really knows the system. Same thing with tax lawyers. It’s a sure trainign program for big-firm partner.
Amen, a favorite recent moment at FDL and all the liberal/progressive blogs
Jon Stewart vs. Jim Cramer.
Anybody have a graph handy of how far CNBC’s ratings have fallen since the crash?
To an extraordinary degree, the financial world was hijacked by a theory. Just happened to be one that freed them from any restraint.
thank you for your response, before I go let me respond to this;
that’s a contradiction of terms, the “very valuable” I am hoping you mean that once in five, if you mean most of the times they are valuable, they are only valuable to cheating, those being cheated have suffered far more then that comenserate differance gained by those doing the cheating, a net loss not a net gain, that’s not value that’s stealing
let’s not forget, just about every regulation (few exceptions) were created to address real issues that would not be addressed by that respective industry, they wouldn’t pay their own bills in some form or other
when the industry manages to evade those regulations that means they are not paying a respective bill, for instance if a manufacturer manages to evade envirnmental regulations then my mom suffers by dying of lung cancer or my son pays by getting bronchitis
this is not “valuable” except to that person doing the cheating, and his gain is not as much as our loss
off for the day, charles, an honor
I’ll use perris’s comment to speak to the part of the book that — although isn’t explicit, I had the sense (and have observed in my own experience) that academics tended to ‘fetishize’ their own field. As Prins points out, if you’re a mathematician on Wall Street, you develop uber-complex, inexplicable ’stuff’. (Okay, I hope that my paraphrasing wasn’t too brutal…)
Which makes is sooooo refreshing to see the clarity with which each of these men talk about, and think about, economics and money. Really a breath of fresh air!!!
With regard to the ‘lots of deniability’ I’d love to know if there was some kind of collusion. At times it seems this or that was done for a narrow specific reason, but then when A-Z seem to connect in a logical way it seems perfectly clear that there was an awful collusion to plunder the economy before the next Dem administration could come in and stop it.
Really, when a CDS is essentially insurance, but nobody has reserves, then what else can we think except that they really knew it was all going to tumble down and land in the lap of government. Well, government is getting pretty limited these days with all the debt.
Just how much confidence did those guys on Wall St. have that they weren’t destroying America?
Did the 3 amigos have great fear we were never going get back up? Did they know we’d recover and Wall St. would just make out like bandits? How did Buffet & Soros do in the last couple of years?
Normally they work pretty well. The false innovation here wasn’t the credit card or the car lease, it was the securitization industry that was hunting for subprime credit cards and car leases because the higher rates made them easier to sell.
Amen.
The fact that they also appear to be ethical is also heartening.
you said, “True enough. 1/ Personally, I don’t trust Larry Summers. he and Rubin dismantled Glass-Steagall and ensure that bank holding companies would be essentially unregulated.”
I couldn’t agree more. These men never seemed to even weigh the potential negatives of their actions – like they saw one outcome and one only. At the time, both indicated that we would be more globally competitive with less of these ‘depression-era’ regulations, I was just wondering, the global-trend investor that he is, where did Soros come out on this specific argument at the time, and since.
Just to clarify, I meant that 4/5 are worthless tricks, but the fifth may be very valuable. As written a tad ambiguous. Thanks for joining,
I apologize Nomi, that was a condescending thing of me to write to someone of your stature, who is kind enough to give of her time to host a book salon.
Fixed it for you.
so basically the incentive to spend time at the SEC, is to get a more lucrative job in the industry you’re supposed to be regulating, later – that can not produce the most diligent protectors of the public.
George was a global financial bear, lamenting runaway growth in derivatives by at least 1997. Was mostly laughed at.
no problem – I’d say a lot worse in private…
I may print this out and tape it somewhere.
I don’t think that I’ve seen anyone be this succinct.
And I had cut some of these people a lot of slack b/c I thought they really did not fully comprehend what they were selling — which just makes them shills, in my book.
One of the striking traits about Buffett is his attempt to really understand the nature of what he’s buying/selling. That alone seems to set him apart… or am I too cynical…?
Older friend of pursued a Capt Ahab like price-fixing suit against GE in the late 1950s, put some guys in prison. Law firms bid for his services like he was kobe bryant. You work for the side you’re on. If you can beat GE’s lawyers in open combat, join us and we’ll send you against the government.
On Buffett, yes that’s true.
Yes, you note that where you say that the people who worked with him speak of him as ’somehow visualizing vast flows of money’. And it made me think of how Einstein had an incredible ability to visualize, even though he also is said to have not been so great at calculations.
In contrast, as Nomi Prins has reported, the guys who can really calculate end up selling us no end of trouble.
I just found it really interesting.
(To be totally boring about it, it made me think, ‘hmmmm… I’d sure like to know whether Soros buys modern art, or enjoys visual arts. I’ll bet he has a very good visual cortex… but I digress.)
On that specific question, I never asked, nor remember his saying anything.
Ah, what a terrific question… (!)
Particularly given the amounts of money at stake.
You made this important point artfully in TRILLION DOLLAR MELTDOWN. You are the opposite of an author who jumps on bandwagons, another characteristic which makes your books so valuable.
Not trying to be condescending I certainly meant nothing bad toward Nomi I was just trying some humor.
I was just out knocking on doors for a candidate. . .and I met a woman who basically said, “there’s only so long you can blame Bush for what happened.” She says Obama had his chance and “it didn’t work.”
It does seem like PBO deserves a bit more time, but how much before we know that it was not enough money or not enough time or not enough good advise?
okay, that makes me feel better.
And further on the subject of regulation, you characterize Buffett as someone who ‘follows his own course and doesn’t give a fig about what everyone else does.’ He also famously said credit derivatives were weapons of mass destruction. GIven, that where do you think he would fall on the current debate about derivatives regulation. On the side of Soros – who thinks we should abolish them, on the side of Geithner – who wants to put the standard ones on exchanges, living a lot of wiggle room for esoteric ones, or somewhere else?
You know, if you read the sections on Soros or Volker, it really does give a good sense of HOW independent they had to be in order to operate the way they have in a context of cultural discussions and assumptions so profoundly shaped by the Chicago School.
That’s one thing about the book that I especially like — you really begin to see how much integrity, or ‘guts’ it took for these men to achieve what they have. I find it hopeful and inspiring.
Interesting. there is art in his apt, but nothing caught my eye. But likely a comment on my eye.
Everything bad was meant for Cramer
That’s extremely helpful.
Thank you.
I don’t think that I ever understood it quite that way before.
My apologies.
The “fixed it for you,” crossed a line with me. The other part, I had no problem with. It was funny and appropriate imho.
I know you’re a long time commenter here, so please accept my apologies.
Buffett has huge derivatives positions right now, most in losing positions, but he’s also realized huge amounts of cash on them. But they’re very intelligent positions, with strong counterparties, and meeting needs on both sides. Nothing intrinsically wrong with derivatives.
Appreciate that. Pretty much what I was hoping to do, in fact, which is very gratifying.
You come across as a Renaissance person. On page seven of TRILLION DOLLAR MELTDOWN you weave in an erudite analysis of 20th century birth rates. I didn’t see that coming.
It took about five years to blow up the financial world, and quite a few years of laying the groundwork before that. Won’t be fixed in a year or two. In fact I hate to see the admin stampeded into making rosy claims. IMF has just forecast 2.5% GDP decline in US this year. Awful. But 6.2%! in Germany, and 4% in France, and 6% in GB; even 4% in Canada I think, which mostly did it’s best to stay out of trouble. this is a BIG mess and no one country can do it by itself. The lower decline in the US is at least partly because of the aggressiveness of the govt, including Bernanke (whom I’m not a fan of).
Gotta keep readers off balance
I guess the lady who said “it didn’t work” didn’t believe all the talk about it being another Great Depression.
If someone had saved the Titanic would they be criticized for having shaken the dining tables so hard glasses fell over?
Of course, her attitude is probably held by a lot of the electorate. Politicans can’t work miracles, so how could Obama have ever ’solved’ this problem so fast that the electorate wouldn’t punish him? What if a Republican were President and never solved the problem, so we had another Great Depression or a “Lost Decade”? Would she have given that president more leeway?
It’s annoying. But, the main thing, despite the politics, is to get the problem solved quickly & properly. Period.
I think this is one of the ’sagest’ takeaways about Buffett. He doesn’t trust investments, unless he’s done his own homework. If he doesn’t understand something, he doesn’t get involved. Or were there any instances when he did get involved with deals he didn’t fully examine – if so, did these just confirm to him the importance of prudence? Didn’t too many investors in this period buy and leverage assets they didn’t have a clue about?
IMHO, part of the benefit and value of this book is to look at the life experiences of these 3 men, who really developed tremendous expertise.
I wonder if one were to go back into Rubin’s childhood, or Summers, would they find the kinds of activities that Soros describes as ‘like Raiders of the Lost Ark’ in terms of having to rapidly spot anomalies and react as if his life depended on it. Or would Rubin or Summers ever have been a nerdy kid selling gum and Coca-Cola door-to-door? At some level, these layers of experience translated into expertise.
I don’t sense that Rubin or Summers have this kind of hands-on, real-life experience with money; isn’t it more abstract and theoretical to them?
No need to apologize Dude standing up when you think someone is getting picked on is a quality I admire about many here at the Lake.
Unlike Regular Democrats we stand up for our friends and unlike Republicans we can admit when we make mistakes.
I know that I have certainly said sorry for worse.
Thanks, that is helpful. Though that seems obvious, one should never misunderestimate the view of the voter on the street.
Are you hopeful yourself about where we are headed?
Well, I appreciate the message – heavens, it’s refreshing!
Which is why rather than let my notes-in-the-margins copy sit on my shelf, it’s promptly going to one of my kids. And then, I hope to a young atty who is interested in business law.
(I only recycle good things.)
Appreciate the response.
Actually feeding Nomi a line, not replying to myself. Did you know that 3/4 of all income growth from 2000 thru 2007 went to the top 1%? that’s part of the residue of the wall street boom. Lots of parallels with 1920s.
I think good books need bigger margins so we can write in them too:) It does get messy.
Whoa! Can you get President Obama to mention that in his next Nationwide speech I can’t think of a better Zinger and I hang with some very good writers (that I borrow from constantly ) here:)
In the Sages, you mention one of your favorite things economist got wrong actually came from current Fed Chair, Ben Bernanke – where he characterized the soaring American debt and deficits are being caused by ‘excess global savings’ in 2005. How confident do you feel in how Bernanke is handling things now?
Your Welcome:)
Buffett’s always honest about the deals he screws up. The characteristic error — he doesn’t make that many but this is one he’s made several times — is that he doesn’t anticipate that a solid market position will be lost when the underlying technology changes. But he’s always conceded he doesn’t understand technology.
One of the nefarious things about the CDO boom and bust is that the products were structured in forms that had done very well for a decade or more, and got much the same ratings. Obscured for the average (even sophisticated) buyer was that the underlying assets had been shifted from quality credits to garbage.
Gotta run. Thanks so much to Charles, Nomi, and everyone else for a terrific chat.
Bernanke is an academic who has made a career in explicating what was wrong with the govt’s response to the Great Depression, and what they should have done.
There is nothing more terrifying than an academic with a thesis to prove, and access to all the world’s power levers to prove it. So I’m terrified.
So far, so good, I think, allowing reasonable margins for error. But I’m still terrified.
Very disheartening – about the growth in Wall Street wealth vs. the rest of the nation. Not only that – many of the main companies at the heart of this debt-leverage meltdown posted record profits in 2006 – including Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers who went bankrupt and Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley who are now, thanks to the FED, bank holding companies, and thus under the federal bailout tent. So, not only did their leaders and senior execs make a ton of money from 2000-2007, they made the most in 2006 – JUST before things began to fall apart.
Thanks for joining.
Yep.
Which brings in the role of ratings agencies. Which, frankly, Nomi Prins’ OP’sM opened my eyes to – but do you sense that many Americans understand this factor?
Also, the 3/4 of profits going to 1% is chilling.
If I went to my local shops and asked 20 people, I doubt a single one of them would have a clue.
It would also be interesting to know how much of the losses from the bust were absorbed by retirement funds. All these people who thought they were set but are now, notsomuch. Devastating to the large (?) middle.
The usual 1% taking the cream, the rest (usually) picking up the chaff, to mix metaphors.
Thanks to Nomi, Charles and all the FDL hamsters and readers for all the information here today.
Wow.
Now, I’m starting to get it.
Soros spent his early years doing all kinds of odd jobs, and learning about finance in London (the hard way).
Buffett sold candy door-to-door as a kid.
Successful or not, those experiences were the foundation of a lot of decisions both of them had to make later.
In contrast… Bernanke is an academic… so if I think of the implications of the beginning and end of this book… the word ‘terrified’ does come to mind.
Not ‘evil’, and not corrupt.
Just… academic experience is not the same as actually having to solve real problems in real time.
I don’t know them personally. But they have spent their lives in single channels. Soros is widely experienced, but both PV and WB have specialized in what they do — broadly applied of course — but pretty specialized animals.
Soros, btw, has a great record in his foundation. Quite different from any other of that size. He’s dozens and dozens of completely independent entities that he partially funds and does not control — kind of loose affiliation kind of thing, which has been very effective in lots of places. His finest moment was helping post-Wall democratization in Hungary and other places.
you said, “One of the nefarious things about the CDO boom and bust is that the products were structured in forms that had done very well for a decade or more, and got much the same ratings. Obscured for the average (even sophisticated) buyer was that the underlying assets had been shifted from quality credits to garbage.”
That’s the clearest depiction of the toxicity of the CDO market, I’ve read !!!
Those deteriorating assets backing CDOs, notably subprime and other lower quality credits (from individual and commercial loans) were basically leveraged many times within the CDOs. In the mid 1990s – CDOs contained emerging market and high yield bonds, and weren’t so layered. Fast forward a decade, and deals that had 4 pieces, became ones with 100 – they contained pieces of other CDOs, and other esoteric products. Often the performance of one CDO was circularly connected to another that was contained within it. Things just got out of control.
Rating agencies were shameful. What can you say? Buffett’s investment advice to ordinary folks is to buy Vanguard index funds. John Bogle you can trust.
I suspect someone decided to change the laws regarding mortgage lending specifically to erode the value of those CDOs. I wouldn’t hazard to guess where that idea came from or if it was intended to target someone with a position in those. But, there is a fundamental principle about Power: when one person or group has too much (or is dangerous in using it) everyone else joins together (if only for one time) to take them down.
I might add that this applied (applies) to the Wall St. firms trying to take down Social Security and probably all the retirement funds. Too much economic power in those piles of cash, so the gang goes after them.
It could be seen as gang warfare where one side is organized and the other is just a bunch of sheep, but that could be a temporary situation and most of the time the ‘gang’ fights one another. Bubbles may be made, but if the other guy made them then your ‘gang’ wants to burst them and take the booty.
As we come to the end of this lively and informative Book Salon,
Charles, Thank you for stopping by the Lake and spending the afternoon with us discussing your new book and the Financial Markets.
Nomi, Thank you very much for Hosting this great Book Salon.
Everyone, this is a great book, if you haven’t bought one yet, here is a link.
Thanks all.
He seems to have an unusual ability to create what might be called ‘distributed networks’ in terms of his philanthropic efforts. But as you point out, his solid basis is Karl Popper’s grasp of how to recognize what works — as opposed to ideology — has served him very, very well.
It’s one reason that for all the wailing that I sometimes see about him, I disregard it.
I think that I first heard his name in the period that you mention was tough for him — he was a bit ahead of his time with respect to derivatives. But certainly has been vindicated in spades!
Right. That’s why harvard business school professors mostly focus on organization and finance. The only things about business that you can put on a blackboard. And the B-school guys wrecked american business, but that book I haven’t written yet.
Helicopter Ben ’s thesis seems to be that Hoover could have stopped the Great Depression by giving the banks more money. The unspoken implication is that the methods FDR used to fight the Great Depression were unnecessary and inferior to *cough * Genius Ben’s thesis/theory of what should be done.
So far I’m not impressed with Helicopter Ben.
Thanks for coming.
Wow, that’s an epiphany.
The part that makes me completely nuts is the notion that the same item could have unlimited numbers of CDOs written on it. I mean, honestly, how many insurance policies is my homeowner’s policy really going to allow me to write on my home?!
Yet, if I were in ‘the market’, couldn’t I write a new ‘contract’ on my house just about every 10 minutes?
Madness.
You are going to write a book on that topic? I can hardly wait any chance I can get an advance copy? I’ll pay.
Thanks for a great hosting job.
Best, (and I’m getting your book)
Well, when you write that one, I think you’ll have a fair number of us who comment around these parts passing the title around (!).
And THAT book, I’ll bet my ‘in person’ book club would read. (Three accountants in that group, FWIW. Oh, and they’re all married to OTHER accountants…)
Thanks Charles – this was so enlightening…..!
And thanks to everyone here!!!
Everyone who hasn’t bought Charles’ book, do so now – then tell all your friends to do the same!!!!
Thanks so very much to you and to Nomi Prins (whose ‘It Takes A Pillage’ I’m ordering from my local bookseller).
I thoroughly enjoyed this book — lots of margin notes.
Sounds like I now need to read the one that won the Loeb Award ;-))
Just a ’second’ to that thought. It’s a terrific read, very clearly explained — and nice to read financial material that doesn’t just leave me steaming. It’s an optimistic read!
True the only book that might be more popular at the Lake would be a page by page comparison of Sun Tze and how Bush waged the war in Iraq and Afghanistan emphasis on mistakes.
I predict a best seller:)
Thank you so much — very enlightening.