Why I Don’t Think Warren Would Take the VP Job…

Lot of speculation that Clinton might pick Elizabeth Warren for VP.  It doesn’t seem likely…

  • Warren’s dream job is head of the Senate Finance Committee.  A platform for her message and brand.  Hearing after hearing with her patented pointed questions.  All the dirty laundry…  Plus personal payback for all the nasty things they said about her.  Hmmm… maybe the smart money on Wall Street should be begging Hillary to make her VP to avoid that?  Instead they’ll probably pour money into the Senate races to try and prevent a Democratic takeover.  And risk going down swinging….
  • Warren doesn’t need Hillary’s spotlight.  She is already powerful and influential as an independent force.  Becoming VP would diminish her stature not increase it.  Note how she withheld her endorsement until AFTER Hillary won enough delegates.  That’s the act of an independent power broker.
  • The real fight now is for Democratic control of the Senate.  Hillary’s better off with Warren out there fighting for Senate control.  And Warren is more effective doing that as an independent.
  • Senate control argues against Hillary picking ANY sitting senator.
  • Warren doesn’t seem to particularly trust or like Hillary.  Although that could be said for @55.7% of the country if you believe the polls.  🙂
  • The first “gotcha” VP debate question would link Hillary’s now infamous Goldman Sachs speeches to Warren’s position on the ticket.  Warren doesn’t (and can’t) have a good answer to that one…

My guess is Hillary goes for a Latino.  Why? Latinos now are energized and pissed off by Trump.  Hillary will want to start digging a Democratic-leaning groove into that nascent voting habit.  And voting habits tend to stick for generations….

Latinos have been the jump ball of US politics for a while now – low voting rates but increasing population numbers.  Socially conservative, but friendly to government.  And deeply wary of present-day Republicanism (NASCAR fans,  “dog whistle” bigotry of anti-immigration talk, and the general bad taste of the “Southern Strategy”).

If that Democratic voting rhythm is established, Texas and Arizona go purple and then blue over the next few election cycles.  And losing Texas alone is a mathematical death-blow to Republican presidential hopes.

Unless the Republicans drastically renovate the party.  Lets hope they do.  Dysfunctional wacko-ism does no-one any good.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Whither the House? A Legislative Golden Age? Possibly. Even Greater Wacko-ism? Definitely.

I just read a Bloomberg column by “conservative” writer Ramesh Ponnuru (AEI, National Review) all but awarding Democrats the Presidency AND the Senate?!?  “Republicans accept the conventional wisdom that Hillary Clinton is favored to win the presidency, and they know that her election would probably end their majority in the Senate. But in a year that has upended political expectations, they have clung to one comforting assumption: Their hold on the House is secure.”  He goes on to question the hold on the House.

I’ve been musing around the same, but when did this become “the conventional wisdom?”  It seems a bit premature to award the Senate this early.  Maybe this is best read as a gauge of the despair?  Rational conservatives finally acknowledging “their” party’s take-over by the NASCAR fan base.  I’m guessing a guy named Ramesh Ponnuru doesn’t feel so welcome in the thick of of a NASCAR crowd (or at a Trump rally)…

But he’s right.  The House is definitely the most interesting question out there now.  There are two scenarios.

  1. The Democrats win the House outright.  That seems unlikely.
  2. The Democrats remain in minority, but take a bite out of the Republican majority.  This seems likely and a LOT more interesting…  Oddly enough, it might also usher in productive era for American politics…

Why?  Democrats will ONLY pick off Republican moderates.  The wacko wing of the House comes from districts that will never flip.  That’s why their elected Representatives are wackos – QED.  So any Democratic gains will come in “swing” districts voting out less-than-totally-wacko Republicans.

The end result is (probably) a smaller Republican majority with a larger percentage share of wackos.  As we have all learned in the last few years, that wacko wing is allergic to the actual business of government.  Cue a nihilistic procession of government shutdowns, tilting at windmills (voting down Obamacare) and general grandstanding.  Anything to avoid the actual messy, compromise-laden (ew! ech!)  duties of governing a diverse country with its cross-currents of interests.

So why is a larger wacko wing a good thing?  Because the beleaguered, non-wacko rump of the Republican could start doing deals across the aisle vs dealing (and failing) within “their” own party.  That has arguably already happened.  Very little real governing gets done in the House without Democratic votes these days…  De facto coalition government with Paul Ryan as the pivot point…  

And why could that be a productive era for American politics?  Paul Ryan is a twerp, but he is inclined to actual governance.  He will do deals.  A legislative balance between a resurgently Liberal Senate and a Right-of-Center-But-Not-Wacko coalition in the House.

Whatever passes muster through both Paul Ryan’s and Elizabeth Warren’s meatgrinders is probably going to be finely ground,well seasoned, and reasonably tasty political sausage.  Appetizing to political centrists at least.  A fix to the corporate tax code?  Some obvious tweaks to Social Security?  Real infrastructure investment?  The possibilities seem endless after so many years of obstructionism…

Or the House wackos just take over the asylum.  Then the legislative engine simply grinds to a halt.  Almost today’s status quo, but increasingly damaging if it goes on.  Those roads and bridges will still keep on rotting away….

  • The Democrats could pick off so many Republican moderates that there is no rump wing left to do those deals….
  • The wacko wing could de-throne Ryan & Co in the leadership.  They will most certainly try.  But that could result in a House “Majority” leader elected with votes from the House Minority party.  That event would take today’s de facto coalition government out of the shadows.
  • Ryan’s gets “primaried” and his constituents vote him out a la Eric Cantor.  Also a very real risk….

All interesting, but perhaps overly hopeful.  What is certain that November will yield a MORE extreme, ideological, nihilistic, “Ultra” Republican House.  More wackos, fewer moderates…  The wackos will go deeper into an impotent, foam-flecked rearguard battle against an increasingly diverse, tolerant, and urbanized America.  A battle they are already losing.  NASCAR peaked years ago…

The wackos will also be “the” national face of the Republican party.  Compounding the damage Trump will do to the Party’s standing.  All bad news for thoughtful conservatives out there.  For they will truly lack a home.  They have my sympathy.  But there is no deliverance from a deal with the devil.  The bill for Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” has come due.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

I (Still) Think Stocks Go Higher… A Wall of Money vs a Wall Of Skepticism. The Money Wins…

The last few days of selling notwithstanding, I think the market is more likely to  “melt up.”  Past its prior highs and up to Lord knows where.

As that last phrase implies, I don’t think “valuation” per se is the main driver.  Or even a useful way to think about it.  Per prior pieces, its pretty hard to figure out a “fair” value for anything in a world of negative interest rates (getting paid to borrow).  The only certainty is that past analogues, patterns, and rules of thumb are useless.  They depend on a positive rates dynamic that doesn’t currently exist.

So we are left stumbling along in a foggy world where North has shifted  to someplace unknown on the compass rose.  That dead reckoning and inference are deeply discomforting.  But its smarter than seeking comfort from a map that is guaranteed to yield garbage coordinates.

So why do we go higher?  Because the money has to go someplace.

Fighting that wall of money is a wall of skepticism.  It is dressed up in a lot of reasonable sounding arguments about valuation and ya ya ya.  But much of that “analysis” is just recycling the past to avoid facing a discomforting future.  They are navigating off maps where North is still where it “should” be.  And/or shouting loudly for the gods (ie the Fed) to move North back to its normal place.  Anything to avoid facing the reality of uncharted waters.

I think the wall of money will win.  And Lord knows where we end up.  There is probably a very ugly reckoning ahead somewhere.  But only after the skeptics become enthusiasts…

Anyway.  Going camping in the Sierras this weekend.  At least the maps still orient to North out there…. 🙂

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Silly Season Starts, But Hillary Still Wins…

We are into silly season for the election.  We “could” be having a substantive national conversation about the Senate races.  But that’s a more-than-two-horse race and requires explanation.  Besides, when was the last time we actually had a “substantive national conversation?”  So its time for weird polls and wild theories.  The story of the moment? Hillary might actually lose!  Stay tuned!  Keep watching!  Please we need the ad dollars!

Hillary is still going to win.

Why?  Look at how today’s disaffected will line up come Nov. 6.

  • Disaffected Democrats will still show up.  Lefties shifting to the center.  They are energized, angry, and (rightfully) suspicious of Hillary’s bona fides. It is telling that the Koch brother prefer Hillary to Trump…  But they will still show up to vote for her.  They have a sense of civic engagement.  They fear Trump.  And Bernie and Elizabeth Warren will have camped out in those Senate swing states getting out the vote.  With the powerful message that a Democratic Senate is the best way to keep Hillary’s crony capitalist Davos buddies in line.  A powerful message because it is largely true….
  • Disaffected Republicans will stay home.   Centrists who’d rather lose than endorse the extreme.  Remember the Sarah Palin effect?  A LOT of Republicans just couldn’t bear that vote on their conscience.  The courageous, civic-minded ones voted for Obama.  The other 95% (grin) just found something else to do on election day…  Trump will have the same effect.  Suburban, college educated, non-partisan Republicans (especially women) will abdicate and let their districts tip Democratic.  The Republican establishment will be begging them to turn out in those same Senate swing states.  But who’s the Bernie or Liz of the Right?  Who rallies the troops….  Paul Ryan?  Hah!  He can’t even rally the House….

Actually, the Republican elite’s pivot to a defensive stand for the Senate validates the above in three ways.

  1. The smart money has already given up on the Presidency.
  2. Senate control is the real key to control of the national agenda…
  3. The elites preference for Hillary + a Republican Senate validates the Bernie supporters’ mistrust of her.  And the argument for a Senate overthrow.

Point 3 is a subtle one, but I’d expect it to be made over and over again by Bernie and Elizabeth.  Make sure we’re there to keep her and her cronies’ feet to the fire.  Sander’s base is educated and activated enough to grok that.

The opposite argument – vote Republican to save the crony capitalist oligarchies! – doesn’t have quite the same ring to it.  Vote to keep those lefties out! would work better.  But it risks energizing/validating the left’s turnout efforts.  And vote for gridlock! probably doesn’t play well after the last 8 years of increasingly churlish obstructionism.

As a final factor, there are Trump’s lumpenproletariat supporters.¹  One thing that probably does come out of the next few months’ news cycle is something truly despicable , ignorant, and viral that slumps “thinking Republican’s” even deeper into despair.  Although arguably Trump’s been delivering that for some months now….  But it can always get worse.

So take a break for the next few months.  Watch the Olympics!  Amateur sports!  Clean, noble, un-corrupted by elites and rivers of hidden cash…  Hmmm.  Scratch that…

¹ “Lumpenproletariat is a term that was originally coined by Karl Marx to describe the layer of the working class that is unlikely ever to achieve class consciousness and is therefore lost to socially useful production, of no use to the revolutionary struggle, and perhaps even an impediment to the realization of a classless society.


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Why the Market Might Go Up? Even with Vegans Starving in a Butcher Shop.

The operative term here is “MIGHT.”  This is about exploring a scenario, not making a prediction.  The S&P500 has been wandering around between 2000 and 2100 for the last year.  With notable breakdowns in August 2015 (ChinaMacroOil blurk!!!) and January/February 2016 (“The Davos crowd talkin themselves into a tizzy until reality (via 4Q earnings) re-asserted itself!”  AIEEEE!!!!).  Now we’re back to wallowing around under 2,100.   Where to from here?

The consensus remains resolutely glum.  It is still a mostly unloved bull market – 7 years in.  That alone is a good reason to ask whether the next move is actually up.  Some reasons.

  • The “pain trade” is UP.   People seem to be positioned somewhere between “cautious” and “bearish.”  So a sharp shock move upwards is most likely to maximize collective investor pain. And the pain trade has been the most reliable market mover for the last few years.  Why?  A stew of Davossian group-think, too many algorithmic robo-traders, and probably a few too many right-leaning “investors” confusing crackpot ideology with macro-economic insight (especially around monetary policy)…
  • Negative interest rates outside the US = a rising swell of money headed to our shores.  Negative rates mean lenders are PAYING borrowers to take their money.  If that sounds insane it should.  Today’s market environment is (literally) unprecedented.  Negative interest rates were a hypothetical, academic thought exercise not the stated policy of TWO major central banks (Japan and the ECB).  No-one quite knows how to think about a world where you get paid to borrow.  Certainly I don’t.  But my guess is people will eventually
    1. wrap their heads around it,
    2. get clever,
    3. find a way to pump a ridiculous amount of money into assets that still pay a positive interest rate.   Like the S&P500 with a 2.12% cash dividend yield.  Or Microsoft at 2.79%.  Because if Microsoft is cutting its dividend in the next 5-10 years the world economy has broken down to the point that you’re better off investing in canned food and shotguns…
  • Negative rates negate past historical patterns.  I see a lot of bloviating about “unprecedented” valuation levels.  Or “x years since a recession”  This is inevitably accompanied by charts referencing the past 5, 10, 15, or even 100 years of data.  All of which are totally useless.  We live in unprecedented times.  Because negative interest rates are also “unprecedented.”  As is a whole lot else going on right now.   The one thing we know about the past is that it is useless as a guide to the future.  Because the present is totally FUBAR.
  • Dry Brush Piled Up.  Normal wildfires should happen on a regular, cyclical basis.  But sometimes they don’t happen.  So the dry brush piles up.  Until you get a massive, uncontrollable conflagration.  Central banks worldwide have piled up a whole lot of dry brush (see “negative rates”).  But monetary velocity remains sluggish.  None of that “money printing” is actually finding its way into the economy.  Maybe we’ll have to take the next step to “helicopter money.”    This is getting surprisingly serious consideration (because anything is better than – gasp!- fiscal stimulus).  It fits the fire metaphor well, with a helicopter dropping big loads of gasoline instead of fire-suppressant….  But maybe those animal forces struggle to life all on their own and a spark catches somewhere somehow.  It’d be a big burn if it does….
  • Fiscal Stimulus 1:  Hah!  Just joking.  The Davossians ideological blinders keep the idea of serious government spending well off the table, beyond the pale, and unmentionable in polite company.  Because the idea of getting paid to borrow and invest in productive repair/renewal of long-lived assets like roads, bridges, rail, telecoms, and sewers is somehow wrong.  We should have to sweat hard and suffer for these things because…  Ummm… Well.  Because I said so!  Because I am afraid and uncertain!  Because I can never admit a government role for anything!  Go away I’m not listening Nyah Nyah Nyah!  Its like a bunch of vegans starving to death in a butcher shop (with a grill handy nearby).  Not tragic.  Just pathetic.
  • Fiscal Stimulus 2:  It is just possible that the tide turns this year.  Germany could come to its senses and start spending some money in response to another European crisis (Brexit?).    The US political calculus might shift enough this election.  It won’t come from the White House (Hillary et al pretty much wrote the Davossian credo).  But it could come from a newly Democratic Senate.  Something faux-free-market-y enough to get a “coalition”vote in the House.  But maybe something.  Which is better than nothing.
  • Unloved Bull Market:  Anyone who’s been an adult for the last 20 years knows what a bubble feels like.    Admittedly, this rules out a lot of millenial hedge fund analysts, but I digress.  There is absolutely nothing euphoric about the present day.  So maybe we have a bear market without a euphoria?  Maybe…. Or maybe we have euphoria before the next big crash.  This is one place where past historical patterns might have predictive value…. I’ll wait until I get a stock tip from my taxi Uber driver before I’ll call euphoria.

The biggest problem with the optimistic scenario is the elite’s ongoing crisis of confidence.  The January/February “Davos downturn” was a big wake-up call to me on this score.  I went to two Institutional Investor conferences those months.  The density, urgency, and self-referential certainty of that group-think really stunned me.  And I had thought I was pretty cynical going in.  I still made a decent chunk of money betting against it (grin), but that bet took more gumption than usual.  Fast forward to now.  The “elites” are facing the awkward reality that Hillary is their new, best defense against a howling mob they under-fed for too long.  The great swing leftward is starting to gather momentum and it ain’t feeling all that good.

A final thought to the inevitable “valuation” counter-arguments.

  1. On a mathematical basis, negative-to-low rates break any “past history” referential model.  I’d be VERY interested in any “valuation” argument referencing the actual present and future.  But any model based on past history is worse than useless as a guide.  Holding a map you KNOW is bad, its better to just use your own judgement…
  2. Since when has valuation ever mattered?  (over the short run).  This is the first lesson of successful tech investing.  The market is a huge, messy, volatile thing that goes all over the place.  You need to keep an eye on the compass, but the monster waves swinging the ship around are a lot more important in the short term.  Note that the most of the arguments above aren’t based on valuation.  Because that’s probably not what drives the next big move.  That bothers a lot of people.  But they probably have very tidy sock drawers….

To repeat, this is not (yet) a prediction.  I am positioned for upside more than down in my own portfolio, but I’ve still got some shorts in there…  This is also not about whether the market stays up on some high-holy valuation basis.  I am just trying to figure out the next lurch of the ship.

I will admit the upside move is also a lot more interesting to consider.  The downside scenario is just so depressing.  The monetary pedal is down to the metal (negative rates).  The government spending tap is so firmly shut (by willful, fact-denying, purblind, ideological stupidity).  It’d probably take another crisis on par with 2008 (or worse) to get the “fiscal” stimulus tap really opened up.  And I really don’t want to go back there.  A blind spot I freely concede.  Lets hope for the pain trade instead…

S&P 500 from BigCharts


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Hard Costs Hardly Understood. Financialization’s Costs Pile Up on the Soft Side. Until They Spill Over.

Goldman Sach’s unofficial motto used to be “Long-Term Greedy.”  There’s a lot to commend that as a business philosophy.  It implies some immediate restraint in service of longer-term gains.  But like most artful things, that nuance got lost as “financialization” crept into the US economy.  It got shortened to “Greedy.”

Financialization describes an economic system or process that attempts to reduce all value that is exchanged (whether tangible or intangible, future or present promises, etc.) into a financial instrument. 

Concerns about financialization abound, but the damage all seems a little vague and hard to quantify.  Which allows the (financialized) commentator crowd to dismiss the concerns as a bunch of liberal hand-wringing.

The problem?  The damage is done in the “soft side” of the business equation, which the financialists ignore until it bites them in the ass.  The guys making the mess (and it is mostly guys) then blame some “market” force instead of their own clumsiness/ignorance/gracelessness/general bro-ish-ness.  Lets mine the Wall Street Journal’s Monday May 2 Edition for some examples.

  • Sports Authority files for liquidation after failing to even go bankrupt.  This follows on from another bankruptcy filing at Sports Chalet.  Reporting talks about how tough the sports equipment retail category is, and because Amazon and e-commerce (waving of hands here).  No-one thinks to mention that both were owned by private equity shops that probably made them spectacularly dull, un-informative, un-delightful places to shop.  Because Financialization means limited SKU’s, ignorant store staff, and (eventually) run-down stores and stock-outs.  Shopping becomes drudgery.  This cancer of the soft tissues runs across most of the retail big box, “category killer” stores.  Just visit a Bed Bath & Beyond, Home Depot, Best Buy and ask “is this fun?”  That’s as much why people are going to Amazon.
  • Valeant Pharma admits they were “too aggressive” about drug price increases.  This is at a Senate hearing after a spectacular stock crash, the CEO’s firing, and a general scandal.  Maybe Valeant would still be making piles of money if they had only doubled the price of an acquired cardiac drug instead of tripling it?  And maybe even had the sense to raise the prices over a year instead of a one-off the day the deal closed?  But the long term cost of those “soft” considerations got lost in a room full of financialization…  Lets not even get into Martin Shkreli‘s awesome missing the nuance of “long term greedy.”
  • CNN’s revenues up BIG after they boosted ad rates by up to 40x following the first Republican debate in August 2015.  Whooeee we got a live one here lets make some money!!!  And so the Republican race morphed into a reality TV show.  A (financialized) TV executive’s dream.  A newsperson’s nightmare. The immediate cost is obvious (in retrospect);  A reality TV veteran about to clinch the Republican nomination.  The long term costs range from a crack-up of the Republican party to President Trump starting a nuclear war with someone (maybe France’s Force de Frappe lobbed in with “Freedom Fries for you American Jerks” scrawled on the first missile?).  But hey!  CNN’ll make big bucks on that road to perdition.

So how do we get out of this hole?  It won’t be via self-help.  The “bro” culture of financialization centers on NOT getting the point of all of the above.  Consider that aggressively, almost defensively ignorant guy with the backwards ball cap dragging down conversation to some lowest common denominator (usually sports – sigh…).  He will do anything to stomp out even the idea of nuance.  And, per the WSJ, there is always some convenient “free markety-y-dumb-it-down” explanation that deflects consideration of those long-term (obvious-but nuanced) costs of being a limited, low-horizon, un-interesting jerk.  Or running the business equivalent.  Especially if enough of your options vest before the sh*t piling up under the bed starts to really stink…

PS:  I really don’t think France would nuke us, but it was just a great excuse to use the wonderful term “Force de Frappe.”  Hard to know if its a threat or a dessert.  Really a great phrase either way.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Aren’t “Free” Markets Competitive Markets? Might Democrats Seize That Rhetorical High Ground…?

Competition!?! Egads! That’s totally against free market principles!!  [Whiskey spray-sputter from the Monopoly plutocrat in the top hat….]

What does a “free market” really mean?  Lots of competition?  Or lots of consolidation? The freedom to compete?  Or the freedom to gouge?   Its an interesting but often elided question.  Why?   The Republicans have seized the term and avoided that debate. Why? Gouging is good (as even Gordon “greed-is-good” Gekko mightn’t have courage to say).

Obama is muscling into the Republican’s “free market” rhetorical space.  It might amount to nothing, but watch to see if Hillary (and Elizabeth Warren)  follow his lead. From the NY Times – specifically talking about opening the Cable TV set-top-box market but…

[Obama] will sign an executive order calling on every federal agency to send him proposals within 60 days for steps they can take to promote competition in a range of industries and better protect consumers.

Politically, this points to a “pro market, BUT anti-capitalist” message that could resonate for the Democrats.  “We’re for free markets!  For healthy competition!  Low prices!  We’re just against the fat cats divvying up cozy, collusive cartels!  Raising your prices! limiting your choices!

For your average American consumer and (especially) small business man, that is going to be pretty darn appealing.  And it could start to peel off a decent segment of voters.  It also sounds like a particularly useful bit of messaging for Hillary in the general election.  Obama is putting the ball in the air.  Watch to see if she catches it…

In terms of tactics, the NY times article goes on to note those proposals were actually requested a while ago.  Meaning.

  • A raft of “pro-competition” proposals to hit the news right around the run-up to the general election.  Probably controversial from a plutocratic perspective, but appealing from a populist, consumer perspective.
  • If one of them grasps the public imagination (especially FOX News’ indignant ire), Hillary takes that ball and runs with it…
  • Even if nothing goes viral, Obama craftily shifts the rhetorical goalposts for his successor.  Cementing/extending/defining his legacy.

Is Oligopoly a Problem?
As usual, The Onion’s nails it far better than The Economist. “drugstore giant Walgreens confirmed Wednesday it is proud of its origins as a small business that in today’s economy would absolutely never have been able to get off the ground. “Here at Walgreens, we still live by the same commitment to customer service preached by Charles Walgreen when he opened his first store back in 1901,” said company president Alex Gourlay, referring to the miniscule, independent pharmacy that, if opened in the modern era, would quickly be crushed by the present-day Walgreens and other retail chains whose outsized bargaining power allows them to squeeze out would-be competitors at will.

But you know worries about oligopoly in the US economy are mainstream when right-leaning The Economist is writing “Profits have risen in most rich countries over the past ten years but the increase has been biggest for American firms. Coupled with an increasing concentration of ownership, this means the fruits of economic growth are being hoarded.

Backing that up is work by actual Economists.  There’s been increasing murmurs in the econ blogs about how certain otherwise perplexing US data can be best explained by a model that incorporates excessive industry consolidation etc etc.  NB these are “real” economic researchers not political shills.

You can gut check this just by looking around you.  And hearing the howls of aspiring industry concentrators singed by a newly energized DoJ Anti-Trust department.  My own pet peeve is the “distribution” oligopolies in areas like housewares.  You can have any brand of can opener you’d like, as long as its an (overpriced) model from GOOD GRIPS or a nasty piece of crap…. 

On Cable Set Tops:
Cable companies are screaming bloody murder about the FCC’s sudden enthusiasm for a competitive set-top box market.  Unfortunately, the brought this on themselves.

  • Cable used to argue it was too complex to provide set-top data.  The last effort (Cable CArd) was kneecapped by the cable operators complicating the hell out of things precisely to guarantee a still-born market.  But left that battle with a “on paper” commitment to an open set-top market.
  •  They didn’t give that enough thought when designing their own IoS and Android phone apps.  These work just fine.  The FCC is just asking them to provide a similar “raw” data feed to other, 3rd party apps.  Since its obviously not a technical problem…. Oooops #1!
  • They also brought this on themselves by having lousy decorating sense.  The set-top is a hated object among those who actually care what their living room looks like.  Who are not often male hardware engineers…. Oooops #2….

I don’t think Comcast minds this all too much.  They are getting out of the set top business (in favor of home-wide gateways)  anyway.  It is more of a challenge for Charter and TWC.
Note that their deal hasn’t been formally approved yet.  Which is a nice point of leverage for the FCC’s set-top agenda.  Ooooops #3.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Why Trump Goes 3rd Party. And Might Prefer It. Noble Failure vs Crushing Defeat.

If Trump doesn’t get the Republican nomination, I think he will go 3rd party.  Why?  It solves best for his ego (which is his sole decision function).

Remember, he will lose either way.  The question is which path solves for a more graceful exit (if “graceful” is a word that can be used in a Trumpian context).

Trump will do anything to avoid humiliation.  This is why he might actually prefer a 3rd party route.  He goes out in a blaze of glory.  We fought the good fight.  I did my best against a stacked deck.  Etc. Etc.  If he’s the actual Republican nominee, he’s going to fail spectacularly and embarrassingly.  An epic wave of anti-Trump voters coming out.  And the mass of suburban lumpen-Republicans staying home – that affluent, well-educated, enclaved, un-attached crowd whose political convictions start (and stop) at “I just don’t want to pay taxes. Especially to pay for [pause, quick look around] those people.  Why don’t they just get a job!“*

Trump also loves to be a victim.  If he loses at a contested convention, he can plausibly claim he was “robbed.”  That becomes the justification for a 3rd party run.  Sampson tearing down the temple.

Trump loves the spotlight.  There’s no way he’s going to dutifully line up behind the party nominee.  He’d prefer to be front and center.  Driving the debate.  And participating in the actual debates come to think of it.  Aieeee!  Buy the TV networks!  Ratings will be sky high!

The first point is the key point.  If Trump gets the nomination, he will go down in history as a spectacular failure.  Branded a loser, he also loses any political influence in future years.  Branded a loser” is not a desired Trumpian outcome.  So maybe he plays to lose from here?  Probably not (he is a delusional megalomaniac after all).  But if he loses at the convention, I don’t think he’s going away….

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Warren is the Big Gun Yet to Fire. The Senate is the Prize. Liz/Bernie Double Bill for a More Congenial Workplace…?

The Presidential election is entertaining, but not that interesting.  Hillary will win absent force majeure.   The more interesting contest is for the Senate.  Especially as the math works so whoever wins control in this election likely holds the Senate for a long time to come….

I think the Senate likely flips Democratic and stays that way.  Context:  Republicans are defending 7 “toss up” seats in swing-states – senators elected in the 2010 “shellacking” wave election.  Democrats need to win 5 of them to flip the Senate over.  As always, turnout will decide the Senate races – with women and non-white people being the main swing factors.  Low Republican turnout seems like a given (see below).  On the Democratic side, we could be lining up huge, “wave” scale election turnout.

What drives Democratic wins/turnout (besides fear of Trump)?  Bernie and Elizabeth on the road.  Fighting for those Senate seats.  And (obliquely) for Hillary.  Imagine if the Beatles and Rolling Stones had toured together in @1966.  A Woodstock for the great swing leftward….

Consider all 3 players. Everyone wins in a campaign focused on a Senate takeover.  Bernie doesn’t have to sell out.  Elizabeth has a powerful, personal, actionable message (“Put me in charge of the Financial Services committee and watch those fat-cat’s fur fly!“).  Hillary gets the turnout she needs – especially (rightfully) suspicious left-leaning voters.

  • Bernie Sanders wants a revolution, but he will will settle for a Democratic Senate…  He’s a practical man.  He’d like a more congenial workplace.  And a platform to keep pushing the dialogue leftward.  Most important, Bernie can go out campaigning for a more liberal Senate without shilling for Hillary per se.   He gets a platform for “his” revolution and keeps his young supporters engaged without selling out.  She gets turnout.  Everyone happy.
  • Elizabeth Warren also wants a Democratic Senate.  It means she gets to schedule her own hearings instead of sniping at whoever the Republicans bring into her sights.  Warren is the big artillery in this campaign – yet un-fired but potentially decisive.  She is a great speaker with huge presence.  If she really gets on a roll, I’d guess Bernie ends up her opening act.  But she and Bernie complement each other well.  She speaks to a deep strain of midwestern, anti-bank sentiment going back to William Jennings Bryan’s “Cross of Gold” campaign.  And she will bring in middle aged women in droves.  And she’s a great speaker.
  • Hillary just wants to win.  She’s a bit a tragic figure.  Like Gollum – its unclear whether there’s any humanity left under that thirst for power (more on that metaphor later).  But she will do what needs doing.  And she needs youth and middle aged women to turn out.   Trump et al have already delivered the Latinos and most other minorities (minus the wacko-right Cubans who the Republicans keep confusing for Latinos…).  She’s already OK with African Americans.  Moreover, she’d prefer a Democratic Senate even if it drags her further left than she’d like (remember that policy wise she’s basically a 1980’s Republican moderate).

Of course, those interests fracture is after the election.

  • I’d expect Hillary to spend as much time fighting a newly activist lefty Senate as she does a still-wacko House.
  • But we would also see more of the already-emerging quasi-parliamentary-coalition-style governance dynamic.  Bills pass the still-Republican House with a mix of Republican and Democratic votes, with the Senate pulling them leftward and Hillary acting as a balance.  It all sounds downright European.  Insult to injury for the Republican wacko wing.  Who go even more wacko (and more marginalized).
  • The Supreme Court swings decisively left.  The Republicans (or McConnel) are trying to use Scalia’s seat to hang on to the Senate.  But Bernie and Liz will be using it to take over.  And Republican obstructionism today gives them cover to ram through a couple of very Left, very young Justices…
  • 8 years later, the “centrist” Presidential candidate is probably today’s “socialist.”  Maybe Obama runs again as a Republican? (grin)

The most interesting player in all this is Warren.  Mostly because she has been such a non-presence so far.  Holding her fire.  I’d guess she is waiting for the nomination to wrap up so she can fire with full force.  She gets to support Hillary (1st woman president…) and Bernie (liberal revolution and a Democratic Senate).  At the end, she gets endless Financial Services committee hearings digging into dark corners of Wall Street.  It will be painful, endless, and deeply personal…

Low Republican Turnout:  This is already pretty much guaranteed. but I’ve written it up in the interest of fairness.

  • If Trump is the nominee, anyone outside his boorish base is going to stay home or cast a protest vote.  And if Trump isn’t the nominee, TV ads featuring his greatest hits will still have much the same effect.
  • Slimy scary Ted Cruz?  See this great Onion article “Brutal Anti-Cruz Attack Ad Just 30 Seconds Of Candidate’s Photo Displayed Without Any Text, Voiceover, Music.”  That’s a good thing, because Cruz scares me more than Trump.  If we are doing 1930’s comparisons, Trump is more of a Mussolini and Cruz is more of a Hitler.  One was a bad man, but the other was evil incarnate.  Thankfully, Cruz is probably evil/ugly/scary/slimy enough to fail in the stretch.  Although I do wonder (and fear) where he goes from here…
  • Paul Ryan or some other mangled product of a brokered convention?  That’s be a thing to behold.  Zero legitimacy.  Angry Trump supporters.  Easily painted a plutocratic puppet plaything?  Also notice how rapidly bright-boy VP-candidate Paul Ryan was faded to the background by the Romney team?  My guess is he turned out to be a total dud on the campaign trail.
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Distilled Roadkill, Monetary Velocity, and a (Coming) Bonfire of the Vanities…

The long-promised exploration of monetary velocity!  Starting with a quick shot of “Animal Spirits.”  And no, that does not mean some bearded hipster’s liquor distilled from dead squirrels and other roadkill.  But we desperately need a swig of the stuff…

Animal Spirits” have been THE key missing factor in the economy (and stock market outlook).  The term is often narrowly confined to investor sentiment.  That in itself points to how much investors tend to (wrongly) conflate “the economy” with “the market.”  The original coinage was by John Maynard Keynes.

Even apart from the instability due to speculation, there is the instability due to the characteristic of human nature that a large proportion of our positive activities depend on spontaneous optimism rather than mathematical expectations, whether moral or hedonistic or economic. Most, probably, of our decisions to do something positive, the full consequences of which will be drawn out over many days to come, can only be taken as the result of animal spirits—a spontaneous urge to action rather than inaction, and not as the outcome of a weighted average of quantitative benefits multiplied by quantitative probabilities.[1]”

That “spontaneous urge to action” is what leads a consumer to take the family out for dinner or a CEO to build that new plant.  And you really don’t need a chart to tell you we are still suffering from global angst…  But a chart does offer a way to track the (hoped for) return of those happy feelings.

Which brings us to the woeful tale told by monetary velocity….Chart: Monetary Velocity 

Monetary velocity is my (imperfect but informational) tracker for “animal spirits.”  Velocity is “the number of times one dollar is spent to buy goods and services per unit of time. If the velocity of money is increasing, then more transactions are occurring between individuals in an economy.”  If velocity is high, money is changing hands quickly and the economy “feels” like it is humming along.  A lot of that activity may be non-productive “taking in each other’s washing” but the pace is a powerful social cue and economic driver.

If velocity is really high?  Look at 1999 and 2007 in that chart and sniff a remembered whiff of the electricity (or crack cocaine/meth) in the air back then.

And if velocity it low?  Per the Fed “A decreasing velocity of M1 might indicate fewer short- term consumption transactions are taking place. We can think of shorter- term transactions as consumption we might make on an everyday basis.

The Fed has been printing money like mad since 2008.  The chart above tells you its just not circulating.  It is possible the world has changed irrevocably (the “secular stagnation” thesis).  It is much more likely that we will eventually revert to our free-spending ways.  Velocity starts to trend back up.  With an eventual mania to follow.

Think of low velocity as potential energy that could/will convert to kinetic energy.  Kinetic energy that feeds animal spirits.  That drive the real economy and (probably) the stock market.  “Dry brush piling up” in the absence of a spark to light that metaphorical forest fire.  The assumption is that a spark comes along eventually – hopefully lower oil prices, rising wages, and higher employment.  Pumping more of that money into parts of the economy where it is likely to circulate faster.

  • Low velocity explains why that M2 supply (all that Fed easing) isn’t translating into more economic activity.  They are printing money like mad, but it is circulating a whole lot slower than in the past.
  • Why the slowdown?  A weak multiplier effect from the sectors where the Fed is pumping that money (multiplier = how much a dollar of spending is “multiplied” by follow-on dollars of economic activity).  Instead of re-spending that money back into circulation, it has just pooled there.  Deeper and more stagnant over time.
  • A lot of that money came to rest in the hands of the top 10% (via wealth effect), banks, and commodity producing countries.   It ended up going to “assets” not “activity.”  They pooled it in squirreled-away “savings-like” activity – bonds, bank balance sheet repair, high end Real Estate, offshore slush funds (see “high end real estate”), and sovereign wealth funds.
  • The historically lousy multiplier effect in those sectors only got worse as the money pooled deeper and stagnated further.  Their response was to squirrel away more money, further slowing velocity.  Cue today’s negative long-term interest rates.  Rates aren’t negative because of central bank “manipulation.”  At least not long-term rates (which are set by markets not central banks).  It is because the stagnation has gotten so bad and deep that people are paying to store money.  A bit like the cost of oil storage keeps going up as oil pumping goes deeper into glut territory.
  • Those stagnant pools represent tremendous potential energy.  Dam’s waiting to burst.  Dry brush piling up waiting for a spark.  Oil stores waiting to hit the market.  (Insert your favorite metaphor here).  Take another look at the chart above.  Velocity is clearly low.  Getting back to 2000’s level of velocity implies a 50% increase.  Getting back to peak is almost a double.  Even 1980’s levels imply a hefty jump.  That’s a nice heady feeling we just don’t have today.  Animal spirits.

My hope (and it is just a hope) is that a shift of that money flow to the pockets of broader-based, lower 90% developed world consumers will lead to faster circulation.  Animal spirits re-awaken.  Velocity turns upward.  Things start to hum again.  Ordinary consumers have a MUCH higher multiplier (higher propensity to spend on an incremental “new” dollar).  And they spend it on higher-multiplier stuff than fancy real estate, art, and tasting menus.

How does that happen?  Fiscal stimulus?  Government borrowing (at negative rates = free money) to fix our rotting infrastructure?  I’d say “insert guffaws here” but it really isn’t funny.  Even our central banker’s can’t summon up the courage to state the obvious need for fiscal stimulus.

But maybe, just maybe we can claw our way there via lower oil prices.  Higher minimum wages.  Higher employment.  Slower and with (much) more lasting damage done than if we’d followed the smart playbook of fiscal stimulus.

And admittedly consumers haven’t being doing much obvious spending so far.  But every week that gas stays cheap is another week the money piles up in the pockets of someone who might actually (gasp) spend it on something useful.  I am hoping last week’s GDP report (stronger consumer spending offsetting weakness elsewhere) is the start of a velocity upswing.   All big moves start small.

If animal spirits do start to revive, that catalyst will convert huge stores of potential energy into kinetic energy.  The stagnant pools drain in a flood.  The dry brush burns.  And the animal spirits course faster and faster.  Velocity returns!

It could get out of hand and drive silly-stupid stock market valuations until it all comes crashing down.  It probably will.  Today’s mis-match between paper wealth and productive potential seems too great.  You need a bubble (and subsequent bust) to destroy paper wealth on the appropriate scale.   We probably end up with a bonfire of the vanities.   So sell that art collection….

Of course, a lot of paid shills for the wealthy “serious observers” argue we are in that bubble now.  My sense is they are confusing that squirreling-away-of-money-activity with the forgotten art of actual-investment-in-productive-assets.  Regardless, low/negative long-term rates and that velocity chart say otherwise.  They’d both be riding high and happy if we were in bubble territory.   And they aren’t.

Admittedly, the stock market might or might not follow along with rising velocity.  It may already be partially discounting in a positive scenario.  But my general rule is that market hasn’t topped out until friends and family stop asking you for stock tips and start giving you stock tips.  That hasn’t happened to me so far, so….


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment