Saturday, April 15, 2006

Analysis:
Budget Deficit Projected to Reach Near-Record for 2006

Blaming the costs incurred in the rebuilding of the Southeast from Hurricane Katrina as well as the budget drain from the Global War on Terror, the Bush Administration announced this week that the federal budget deficit for 2006 would reach an estimated $423 billion, close to the record set in 2004 of $433 billion dollars and considerably higher than estimates made as recently as early last month by both the White House and the Congressional Budget Office that the budget deficit would be considerably less. Bush Administration officials had maintained that they would be able to halve the current level of red ink by 2009, a goal that appears substantially more unattainable with the latest admission that federal revenues continue to lag far behind expenses. As recently as March 3 of this year, the Congressional Budget Office was projecting a notably lower federal budget deficit for fiscal 2006: the baseline deficit for all of 2006 was projected at that time as $336 billion, but it was then revised to $371 billion in line with the President's budget projections. Adding to the evidence that federal revenues are severely and unexpectedly lagging behind expenditures, Reuters is reporting that, contrary to Wall Street economists' expectations that federal revenues would fall short of expenditures in March by about $73 billion, in actuality the deficit for March hit almost $85.5 billion, following on the heels of a record shortfall of $119.20 billion for February.

In an effort to downplay the dramatic loss of budget discipline during the past five-plus years of Republican control of the Executive and Legislative Branches of the federal government, U.S. Treasury Secretary John Snow in December of last year claimed that the budget surpluses in the final years of the Administration of President George W. Bush's predecessor, Bill Clinton, were a "mirage," pointing to allegedly "anomalous" tax revenues in the final years of the 20th Century. The numbers tell a far different story, however: the gap between expenditures and revenues had been closing throughout the Clinton Administration, ultimately culminating in revenues exceeding expenditures in both 1999 and 2000. The surplus immediately fell in 2001, and went into deficit territory the next year—where it had been for Clinton's predecessors—then growing progressively more negative every year until 2005, when the deficit shrank somewhat. With the 2006 estimate, the mounting red ink has resumed its spiral. The graphic below is a revision of one published here at The Dark Wraith Forums last December based upon federal budget figures through 2004. The graphic below updates the depiction with current data and projections provided by the Congressional Budget Office.


The fiscal discipline of the Clinton Administration is starkly evident in contrast to that of both the prededing and the successor Administrations. The surpluses of the final years of the Clinton Administration were the culmination of a long-term effort to clear out the deficits that had been the legacies of both Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Strikingly, as soon as the second Bush Administration took office in 2001, the hard-won gains began to vanish, and by the second fiscal budget of George W. Bush, the deficits had returned. Three rounds of tax cuts by the Republicans in Bush's first term correlate strikingly with the clear shortfall of federal tax revenues against expenditures; and in the face of what is now projected to be a near-record budget deficit for the current year, Mr. Bush is calling for making permanent the tax cuts of his first term. The graphic below focuses the previous graphic on the federal budget surpluses and deficits during the Clinton and Bush Administrations, overlaying each with its associated trendline.


Using aligned years for each Administration's budgets, the trendline for the federal budget deficits and surpluses of the Clinton Administration has a slope of approximately $69.9 billion, meaning that revenues were growing faster than expenditures by an average rate of almost seventy billion additional dollars per year during the years 1993 to 2000. The trendline for the federal budget surpluses and deficits of the Bush Administration has a slope of —$93.5 billion, meaning that expenditures have been outstripping revenues at an average rate of more than ninety-three billion additional dollars per year during the years 2001 to 2006 (with the last budget deficit as currently forecast).

The graphic at left shows the top personal marginal tax rates for the years 1993 to 2006. The three rounds of tax cuts during the first term of the Administration of President Bush are evident. After years of holding steady at 39.6 percent, the marginal tax rate paid on ordinary income by the wealthiest Americans began to slide precipitously shortly after Mr. Bush assumed office and continued to decline with successive rounds of tax cuts until the rate settled at its current level of 35 percent. In addition to the benefit of these tax rate reductions on ordinary income, taxes at the federal level on other sources of income declined, as well. As far as only the top marginal tax rates are concerned, though, for the period from 1993 to 2006 the simple correlation coëfficient between the top marginal tax bracket and the budget surplus/deficit equals 0.754. The square of the Pearson product moment correlation coëfficient for the period under consideration equals a striking 0.574. This Pearson coëfficient is frequently called "r-squared"; in the present analysis, the derived value means that well over half of the variation in federal budget deficits and surpluses over the past 14 years can be explained by changes in the top marginal tax rate on ordinary income, and all of those changes occurred during the Bush Administration, when the Republican Party controlled the White House and both houses of Congress.

The Republicans have no one to blame but themselves for the budget deficits that they, and they alone, have created. Under the Clinton Administration, the United States had recovered from the legacy of budget deficits left by Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush; and despite continuing claims on the White House Website with sub-titles such as "The President's Tax Relief Has Helped Spur America's Economic Momentum," the mounting budget deficits have left the United States once again falling deeper and deeper into debt, with a troublingly large proportion of the on-going shortfall being covered by foreign interests: as of the end of 2005, the external debt of the United States stood at $9.56 trillion.

If any hope can be found in this multi-year federal budget catastrophe, it is in the growing possibility that the scandals now engulfing the Bush Administration and its Republican allies in Congress will lead to a voter backlash at the polls in November of this year, at which time the Democrats could return to power in both the House of Representatives and in the Senate. Although the prospects for subsequent impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney are rather remote, the American electorate will have the opportunity in November of 2008 to remove from the White House the fiscally reckless Republicans and replace them with Democrats who can once again, as they did in the 1990s, rescue the nation from the consequences that are the consistent legacy of Republican Administrations.


The Dark Wraith will share with many other Americans the hope that our collective handbasket will not have reached its destination before that glad time arrives.

<< 39 Comments Total
 glenda blogged...

I remember a time when the Republicans were fiscal conservatives. Where does the buck stop now?

Sun Apr 16, 12:30:30 AM EDT  
 Dark Wraith blogged...

In China, Glenda.



The Dark Wraith can't even muster a grin as he notes that.

Sun Apr 16, 12:45:28 AM EDT  
 meEE blogged...

In China

Well said and sadly so.

The pendulum has swung about as far as can be imagined--maybe there should be a law that states if by some chance a republican does get into office he, she, it may only serve for 6 months and then a democrat must come in and clean up the fiscal mess for the remainder of the term.

Glend--remember when the house fell on the wicked witch of the east? Why aren't there more houses falling out of the sky and landing on big bad bullies?

Sun Apr 16, 03:24:34 PM EDT  
 PoliShifter blogged...

It's all that damned entitlement spending that is the problem. Thank God we have the Republicans in power to finally rein in that unncessary spending like healthcare, student loan programs, and head start. This is America not Sweden.

All these damn commie pinkos will be the end of us. How dare the Democrats want to spend $14 billion on social programs. Don't they know we have weapons to build and wars to fight?

Sun Apr 16, 04:07:12 PM EDT  
 Dark Wraith blogged...

Good afternoon, PoliShifter.

Lessee, now... $18 billion on a deficit of $423 billion comes out to a savings of... Holy cow!... 4¼%!

Boy, you can't get a coupon like that at Walmart. Now, who says the Republicans aren't fiscal conservatives?



The Dark Wraith wants to hear no more nonsense about reckless spending.

Sun Apr 16, 05:05:09 PM EDT  
 PoliShifter blogged...

Just think of all that money going to rebuild the Gulf Coast after Katrina...

If those people hadn't chosen to live in Hurricane prone areas or in a bathtub like New Orleans, then by golly our current budget deficit would be 2% lower than it currently is!

Just imagine if Democrats in power...Not only would the budget be balanced but we'd have all this entitlement spending too! We can't have that, nope, not no way ever again.

Sun Apr 16, 05:12:17 PM EDT  
 Dark Wraith blogged...

Good afternoon, meEE.

I was thinking about the Wizard of Oz several days ago: the black-and-white part of the movie sort of struck me as a metaphor of our era: we had our nice, colorful time; but now we've returned to the land of colorless life, drab scenery, and altogether uninteresting players on the stage.

The least the Republicans could do is have some kind of sex scandal, but noooo: it's all about money and bombs.

Cripe. I didn't know the pharmaceutical companies even made Viagra for war-mongers who can't get a good draft on for themselves.



The Dark Wraith misses the days of simple, salacious sleaze.

Sun Apr 16, 05:17:40 PM EDT  
 dread pirate roberts blogged...

some of the republican appointees are having sex scandals. the ones at the top are obviously asexual, having successfully sublimated their sex drive to an urge for war and death.

and you, DW, are just so mean and hateful to bring up actual economic data. that nice john snow has a much rosier view, even if it is fiction.

Mon Apr 17, 10:48:36 AM EDT  
 Dark Wraith blogged...

Good morning, Dread Pirate Roberts.

You know, the weirdest thing is that Snow's claim about the "mirage" on the Clinton-era budget surpluses has become accepted truth among neo-cons, now. Apparently, one of those Right-wing news organs, talk show hosts, or Websites put up something "validating" Snow's claim because I have heard exactly the same mantra spewed by several people lately. It's just a little too detailed and scripted-sounding to be coming from the Right-wingers' own minds, so it has to be a script. It goes on about how all these "unusual" and "strange" capital gains tax revenues were pouring into the Treasury in the last couple of years of the Clinton Administration and how it wouldn't have lasted and if it hadn't been for those anomalous, the Clinton Administration would have been running near-record budget deficits.

I've gone through the tax revenue data with a fine tooth comb, and the whole argument is complete hogwash. Capital gains tax revenues were, indeed, rising strongly, but this was because we had stock markets that were doing well, for God's sake! Even Alan Greenspan—the Republicans' version of a total eclipse of the Democratic sun—trying to wreck the Clinton economy because of that mythical "irrational exuberance" couldn't really kill it dead.

I need to get me a talk radio show. I'll put John Snow and a few other Econ 101 flunkies in the hot seat.


The Dark Wraith likes that idea a lot.

Mon Apr 17, 11:32:19 AM EDT  
 Anonymous blogged...

Clinton out & out shrank the federal government. There were many fewer fed. employees by the end of his two terms in office than there were at the beginning.

Shrub's tenure has seen the exact opposite.

- oddjob

Mon Apr 17, 12:40:27 PM EDT  
 karen m blogged...

Shrub's tenure has seen the exact opposite.

It's only been in certain sectors though, like the military. Clinton's cuts, on the other hand, were pretty much across the board. At least I think they were.

I hope this is the final nail in the Republican's coffin, but I'm not looking forward to that whole living-through-it deal.

Mon Apr 17, 02:13:08 PM EDT  
 Dave blogged...

I'd like to see the table in constant dollars. Were the Reagan era deficits as big, bigger, or smaller than the W's in inflation adjusted dollars?

Mon Apr 17, 06:22:22 PM EDT  
 My Pet Goat blogged...

I've gone through the tax revenue data with a fine tooth comb, and the whole argument is complete hogwash. Capital gains tax revenues were, indeed, rising strongly, but this was because we had stock markets that were doing well, for God's sake!

Snow Job used the wrong language in referring to a mirage; he should have called it a bubble surplus. I bet a whole lot more people would be buying into the concept.

Mon Apr 17, 06:38:43 PM EDT  
 PeterofLoneTree blogged...

Silver 13.55
Gold 613.20
Platinum 1094.00
Anymore, I do a check every day at
Burt's Gold Page
http://tinyurl.com/ljdev

Mon Apr 17, 06:45:12 PM EDT  
 Anonymous blogged...

It's only been in certain sectors though, like the military.

The Cato Institute has pointed out (even during Shrub's 1st term) that even if you don't consider increases in spending due to the DOD or the Dept. of Homeland Security ShrubCo's. increase in government spending has been the most profligate since Johnson!

- oddjob

Mon Apr 17, 07:38:33 PM EDT  
 Anonymous blogged...

Gold 613.20

In truly good times isn't gold typically between $300 & $450? That in and of itself is symptomatic of the economic times we're in!

- oddjob

Mon Apr 17, 07:41:13 PM EDT  
 PeterofLoneTree blogged...

Gold soared from $100 to $850 in the late 70s and early 80s, dropping precipitously to around $300 in late '82, then bouncing between $300 and $500 until Dec. of '05 when it broke through the $500 "barrier".

Some nice historical charts are available at
http://www.kitco.com/charts/historicalgold.html

Tue Apr 18, 12:52:45 AM EDT  
 Anonymous blogged...

OT: Doesn't really cover any new ground, but nice piece by Carl Bernstein setting everything in perspective, and asserting the time has arrived for the Senate to investigate Shrub's presidency. (Hat tip, Buzzflash.)

- oddjob

Tue Apr 18, 01:27:31 AM EDT  
 Elizabeth Branford blogged...

"In China"!!! Ok I did smirk, Dark Wraith! -Lily

Tue Apr 18, 09:01:23 AM EDT  
 SB Gypsy blogged...

"[T]he President of the United States owes a specific explanation to the American people … about exactly what he did." Specter was speaking specifically about a special prosecutor's assertion that Bush selectively declassified information (of dubious accuracy) and instructed the vice president to leak it to reporters to undermine criticism of the decision to go to war in Iraq.


Woah, SPECTER is now calling for explanations! (never thought I'd see the day...)

Tue Apr 18, 12:54:13 PM EDT  
 Anonymous blogged...

That's what drives me absolutely nuts about Specter. Having grown up in the Philadelphia area, I remember being a little kid and watching him (then City Attorney, ie., Chief Prosecutor) run for mayor against Frank Rizzo (then Chief of Police). Rizzo clobbered him, but that was no surprise since Rizzo was a complete homeboy (who bragged that as mayor he was "going to make Attila the Hun look like a faggot" - this was around 1968 or so) and Specter was an intellectual & an outsider, even if he did have a reputation for being fairly clean (as politicians go).

He has his moments when he really shines and makes you think, "Damn! He really gets it! Good for him!"

And then he goes & settles for one hell of a lot less than anyone ought to (or embarasses everyone by suggesting someone was perjuring themselves)!

- oddjob

Tue Apr 18, 04:58:24 PM EDT  
 Anonymous blogged...

Darkwraith,

I spent eight years as a professional options trader from 1996-2004. I can assure you that every single financial professional that I spoke with or knew felt the Clinton budget surpluses were unsustainable and resulted primarily from the bubble. The options grants, stock market bubble, and resulting capital gains were certainly not the only reason for the surplus because there was some legitimate spending reduction that also took place, but capital gains certainly played a significant role.

We were all hoping that there would be further spending cuts into the Pres. Bush's first term and the Country would be back on the right track financially. Not so much. The market rolled over, 9/11, and the rest is history.

- Cole

Tue Apr 18, 06:49:45 PM EDT  
 Dark Wraith blogged...

Good evening, Cole.

I, too, knew options traders in that time, and I did hear talk about unsustainability of budget surpluses, but I also know that the traders I knew who said that were focused on the capital gains component of the revenue.

I shall go to my grave standing firm against the idea that a "bubble" can be sustained in any securities market that has the trading density, efficiency, and span of participants that are the hallmarks of the U.S. markets. Financial instruments just don't float for months and even years on non-existent positive information. I asked one trader—a good friend with whom I'd done some business—who kept referring to the bubble, "If there's a bubble, why aren't you positioning against it?" That usual mantra about not "fighting the market" came back at me, and all I could think was, "Exactly."

If the neo-cons would even go to the extent of admitting that the major stock markets have been in a crushing, slow spiral in real dollars over the past five-plus years, I'll bet they'd talk about some "anti-bubble"—some persistent, irrational market force that's simply holding down a market that would otherwise be rising like yeast bread on a warm Summer day.

It cuts both ways. No bubbles, no anti-bubbles sufficiently explain secular, long-term trends in securities markets.

Now, Cole, I once owned a penny stock house. I could play a penny stock up onto the roof and keep it there for a little while; but I'll tell you this: I could never keep a stock above honest value for more than that little while. Even in thin OTC and Pink Sheets markets, reality comes crashing down harder and sooner than I would expect. If someone needed out, I might be able to hold price for two weeks, four at the outside; but then the market makers would start slitting my throat no matter how much S-8 paper my client had handed out.

And if I can't keep a thin market bluffed, even greasing the palm of every hoehandle and his brother, there's not a prayer of gaming for months and years tens of thousands of securities prices traded by ill-tempered, driven, heavy hitters with screens all around them pouring information out every last second of every day.

It's just not going to happen, even if every trader on the floor is saying that's what it's all about. Legion are the armies of the world whose soldiers and generals have declared that gods were behind their unbelievable, centuries-long string of military successes, but that doesn't mean anything about what factors were really operative.

I'll tell you one other thing: I've known some extraordinarily successful players in stock markets who would have sworn up and down on a stack of Bibles that their charting acumen was behind their stunning successes. And every last one of those stories was complete baloney (not 'balogna', mind you; baloney). The charts were a charm, a thinking tool, an excuse to explain the inexplicable, deep, innate, gut-level genius for which they couldn't find words, documentation, or validity.

What we provide for explanations are often myths to give expression to what we can't say. History is the legend of the past just as religion is the myth of life and death: neither the madness of time nor the terror of mortality is otherwise explicable.

I have no idea why markets move, and I surely cannot tell what a market or a security is going to do tomorrow, next week, or next year. I just can't. For me to claim that a market is rising on a bubble is for me to claim that I have certain knowledge of a great, calamitous, precipitous fall one day; and that would mean I had posed to predict the future, which as I noted clearly, I cannot do. Not at least, where doing so would make me a decent dime.


Forgive the rant, Cole. It probably bordered on a howl from the perspective of those who endured it. Sadly, I think a howl would have been a little more interesting than whatever that noise was that I just finished making.


The Dark Wraith really does need to learn the art of brevity.

Tue Apr 18, 09:02:54 PM EDT  
 Lymond blogged...

Good Evening, DW.

Well, I go away for a week and look at all the goodies you manage to cook up! Extraordinary graphics, BTW.

I'm wondering if you would comment - in the context of your on the information found in the 2005 Financial Report of the United States Government which has a very interesting cover letter from Sect. of Treas. Snow.

In it he says, "In comparison with the October budget report [which stated the FY 2005 deficit was $319 billion, the number you use in your charts], the Financial Report presents the government’s accrual-based net operating cost, which was $760 billion in 2005." [My Bold]

Now, I realize for charting you must use either all apples or all oranges, but that's a frightening number!! More than double the "reported" deficit! And, if I'm not mistaken, that ain't all by a long shot.

Isn't it true that neither of those numbers reports the borrowing from the Social Security Trust Fund which goes unreported or under-reported? I don't have time to hunt that down right now, but last I'd heard Soc. Sec. was running a surplus of around +/- $300 Billion, and the kindly 'ol trustees just take some of George's "paper IOU's" in exchange for all that cash.

Which, if true, means our government ran at a "real" deficit of more than a TRILLION DOLLARS last year. Do I have that correct?

Are we as screwed as that implies??!!

Tue Apr 18, 09:09:45 PM EDT  
 Dark Wraith blogged...

Good evening, Lymond.

Not exactly. The Social Security Trust fund lends money to the U.S. Treasury in non-auction style, providing a source of operating cash matched by accumulating debt that turns into a special kind of Treasury paper every now and then for the Trust Fund to put away. In other words, the borrowing against the Trust Fund accumulates until it hits a particular point at which time a debt instrument (which has seniority and exercisability over other, regular Treasury securities) is issued to the Fund, which considers the paper as an asset like cash in the bank.

If this sounds somewhat disturbing to you, consider this: the very same thing happens to a lot of money you put in the bank. Demand deposits and other types of cash flowing into a bank get converted into Treasury paper (through Federal Reserve open market operations), too, since Treasury debt—particularly short-term T-bills—are considered essentially a nearly perfect substitute for cash money.

In other words, Lymond, when a bank turns part of your deposit into a T-bill, all that's happening is that the bank has converted your claim against the Federal Reserve and the bank into a claim against the Federal Reserve, the bank, and the Treasury.

Following me so far?

Okay, now here's the "accrual" part, in an admittedly simplified form.

Suppose you have a bill for $5,000, and you have to pay $2,000 of it right away. On a cash basis, you're down $2,000; but on an accrual basis, you're down $5,000.

If the government commits to purchasing a $500 million weapons system, and a disbursement of $100 million comes this year, that $100 million is the recognized expense in the federal budget. However, in reality the government is on the hook not for $100 million, but for $500 million dollars.

Accrual recognizes the incurrence of cash flows, not the occurrence.

If you get a utility bill today for $93.52, and the bill is due on the seventh day of next month, the expense has not occurred until you pay it next month, but the debt is incurred today. Hence, this month, the utility bill expense is $0; only next month will the $93.51 appear in your personal financial papers as an expense, even though you are on the hook for the bill as soon as you used the electricity that caused you to get the bill.

Most businesses must account on an accrual basis: it's not when they pay their bills; it's when they create the obligation represented by the paper bill that eventually comes in the mail.

Now, normal people don't do much in the way of accrual thinking. We just think about bills when they're due. Businesses aren't allowed to do this; they have to account so that end users (investors, the government, etc.) can see the total picture of their liabilities and their assets. From there, the users may have the assurance of independent auditors of the company's books that the liabilities, as they come due, can be met by inflows of cash, generally in the normal course of business (although, when a company is young, it might have to satisfy the current liabilities with infusions of capital rather than a stream of revenues).

So, here's what that means about the government's figures: the Treasury, as a side note, points out the totality of its obligations as you found in that report; however, the Treasury focuses for media consumption on the part of its obligations that come due during the period under consideration, usually a fiscal year.

This is not all bad news because the flip side of liabilities are assets, in this case the sheer ability by sovereign nature of the federal government to generate revenues, almost all of which are from taxes. Just like the government can look at the accrual of its obligations, it can look at the accrual of its revenues.

But here's the kicker: what if there were a time when the government obsessively, consistently, and deliberately kicks the wind not out of its current cash inflows, but out of its future cash flows by making permanent three rounds of massive tax cuts? What happens to the accrual value of all revenues for the future versus the accrual value of all cash outflows for the future?

You know what happens? You get a Treasury Department and a Congressional Budget Office that assume that, by cutting the legs out from under the revenue stream, somehow that revenue stream will simply get that much bigger.

If that doesn't make sense to you, Lymond, then you're just not ready to be a supply-side economist.

That, of course, also means you shouldn't be shot.


The Dark Wraith is going to go fix himself some supper, now.

Tue Apr 18, 09:47:59 PM EDT  
 Mr. Shakes blogged...

This post has been removed by the author.

Tue Apr 18, 10:49:03 PM EDT  
 Mr. Shakes blogged...

Good evening, Dark Wraith.

Those were some interesting comments on the unpredictability of markets. I does seem as though in the case of many successful investors there's a good deal of gut instinct involved. The techniques that chartists use are fairly simple, and yet for every big hitter out there who's made a fortune using them, there are a million suckers who've lost every red cent in an attempt to emulate a hero. Surely, if there was a real scientific basis for the chartists' methodology then any dummy capable of learning the rules would succeed. So I think you are right when you surmise that the big players' brilliance isn't necessarily married to the effiacy of a particular trading strategy, and relies more either on some ineffable instinct, or even, come to that, downright luck.

However, and I realize that I am speaking from a position of relative inexperience here, it doesn't seem as certain to me that the market is as efficient as you stated, or that there aren't particular strategies that when applied with panache will yield results that consistently beat its returns. I am thinking specifically here of Warren Buffet, who when faced with those who claim the market is an efficient mechanism, has a habit of chuckling with maddening condecension. His investment philosophy, at least as it has been laid out both in his rather obtuse letters to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders, and at second hand in Mary Buffet's Buffetology - an excellent book that was deserving of a much less silly title - has an element of genius to it, that if applied by the right sort of mind, at the right time, will necessarily yield superior results.

His application of Graham's ideas to his own concept of the Consumer Monopoly, and his understanding of the power of compounding seem like sound principles upon which the foundations of a winning strategy could be laid; the scale of which would be commensurate, of course, to the talents and energy of the individual employing them. From everything I've read it seems to me, for what that's worth, that Buffet's ideas and their success have less to do with luck or mere gut instinct than they do the dynamism of his intellect; which when it was brought to bear on the problem of investing yielded concrete ideas the success of which is repeatable (Davis, Lynch et al), and therefore scientific.

If the market was perfectly efficient and completely unpredictable I don't think such an achievment would be possible. From the sounds of things you have managed to bend the rules yourself upon occassion! (I will be sending an official complaint to the NASD directly ;-))

Anyhoo - I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on how we can reconcile the idea of an effcient market and its total unpredictability with the existence of a successful investing methodology that, at its heart, takes advantage of extreme market inneficiency, and the predictability that flows from that.

I'm not asking this as some sort of bizzarro challenge, and I'm definitely not certain that I'm right about all this. Hell, I'm new to this game. Just curious, as ever.

Tue Apr 18, 10:50:12 PM EDT  
 Anonymous blogged...

Darkwraith,

As a former practititioner of technical analysis I'm not a real big proponent of the efficient market theory. I understand and appreciate its academic appeal. Logic, math, statistics etc. It's humans with emotions pulling the trigger though.

The famous quote that was plastered everywhere in our office was by Keynes “The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.” This phrase served as a warning not to fight the market and as a reminder maintain a sense of humility. Remaining humble can be tough when faced with a seemingly never ending string of positive reinforcement.

I could list thousands of companies that came public with nothing much more than a business plan and a decent story to tell on the roadshow. Planet RX.com, Garden.com, Pets.com etc. For every Ebay, there were a 100 that failed completely.

Controlling the float was key and that is what allowed the investment houses to bull the stocks higher. The public took the hook and ran with it.

The one certainty that I live by is that you can't change human nature. Tulip mania, the South Sea bubble, the Florida land bubble, John Law's Mississippi bubble, the Nikkei in the 80's, the Nasdaq late 90's. History has a way of repeating itself, especially when you are dealing with human nature and greed.

- Cole

Wed Apr 19, 12:47:52 AM EDT  
 Dark Wraith blogged...

Good evening, Cole.

I should state before I grunt further that I really appreciate your counter-point, and it serves everyone well to see different perspectives that probably say much the same thing.

Now, in my days as a consultant, my primary work was in helping very small companies go public or stay public. At one point, my name was used by a company I had no idea even existed: a press release stated that I had come in as to do a re-org. When the price shot from a couple of pennies up to a buck and a teenth, I found out about my "client" by the phone call I got from a financial reported asking me what I was planning for the re-org.

Those were the days of true weirdness.

I use the number 37. By my count, that's the number of significant accounts I did in my time. Of those, I can say that only perhaps eight or nine had a real product or service. The rest were either pipe dreams or scams.

I can tell you with complete certainty that not one—not one—of those eight or nine actually made it. Interestingly, some of those real products have since shown up on the market, fielded as they now are by some company or another of good repute. In not one instance do I know how the technology ended up going from the hands of the original entrepreneurs to the hands of respectable sorts.

I'll also tell you that the only clients I ever saw get seriously burned in terms of fines and prison sentences were those that had something real. They were the guys who made the mistakes that state and federal regulators couldn't avoid seeing. They were the guys who were so stupid that they were honest when enforcement officials asked them questions that should have been predicated with a Miranda warning.

Sometimes, the insanity of it all made me feel like the king of the world. Only in retrospect do I understand it, and that's how I teach it, Cole.

Greed is the most purely rational of all human motives. It is simple, and from it derives crystal clear action. Unlike its poor cousins—the miserly disenchantments of sloth and lust and envy and gluttony and pride and wrath—unfettered greed drives human action in wholly understandable, perhaps even scientific, ways. That's why I can make a room full of undermotivated finance or economics students sit up in their seats and feel themselves turning into muscular warriors in a way that I simply cannot accomplish in an English class or in a computer science class.

Adam Smith made the Protestant Revolution complete when he gave the world permission to indulge the mortal sin of greed. The Devil himself could not have done a better job of convincing the righteous that a hideous thing was actually good for the world, that it would make the world better.

No, I cannot concede irrationality in markets. It makes greed just another sin.

Greed deserves more respect than that.



The Dark Wraith will probably have to publish some of his consultant essays here very soon, now.

Wed Apr 19, 01:35:31 AM EDT  
 The CorresponAnt blogged...

I'm not sure who this Buffet is that Mr Shakes has mentioned? A relation of Phoebe in Friends?

Gentle jibes aside, Davis and Peter Lynch may have emulated some of Buffett's success but they had some differing ideas and techniques (most notably around diversification of portfolios). They didn't follow some kind of Buffett formula, just as Buffett himself didn't follow Graham's formula. And of course many, many investors have attempted to apply Buffett's methods and have failed to make excess returns. Presumably not all of these failed investors possess a lesser intellect than Buffett.

So your suggestion that Buffett has produced some kind of holy grail methodology independent of its practitioner that brings consistent excess returns is unfortunately incorrect; much as I wish it were true!

However, I'm not convinced by the Dark One's assertions of efficiency in the markets either.

Looking at the markets over the long term, indubitably one can build a case to support the EMH.

However, such a case demonstrates holes when one takes a shorter term view of the market where the vagueries and irrationalities of human psychology seem to hold sway, and where information distribution is most definitely uneven.

If people behave in a way that creates bubbles in markets (as they certainly do), then that behaviour must be exploitable to make excess returns.

If some people (Buffett) can consitently make a seemingly prescient, reasoned, and ultimately correct decision to buy a particular company that outperforms its competitors over time, then surely such a person can make excess returns - assuming everyone doesn't make the same decsion at the same time.

It's all very confusing!

Wed Apr 19, 05:55:13 AM EDT  
 Anonymous blogged...

Count me as another who accepts that it's possible for the market to be irrational over a span of time that can amount to years. I clearly recall that those analyzing the ".com's" that did so well were making analyses based upon estimations of future returns, even though most of them had never once shown any profit at all!

If that's not betting on a dream, nothing is!

(But then I don't regard "investing" in commodities markets as investing, but more as a kind of legitimate gambling. Maybe stock & securities markets are more that way than I care to think about as well....)

- oddjob

Wed Apr 19, 09:03:59 AM EDT  
 Dark Wraith blogged...

Good morning to all of you who are commenting. This is a healthy discussion and debate on efficiency of securities markets. I am not at all convinced that there's disagreement as much as distinctions in terminology and perspective.

These days, I have the luxury of looking from the outside in, a pleasure I was not afforded when I was in the securities business, itself. In fact, I can say that the theoretical part of my knowledge base wasn't nearly as useful on a day-to-day basis as was my technical knowledge, my contacts, and my sheer willingness to work long hours. Even in writing compliance documents, I didn't dare use genuine, honest, complicated, nuanced analysis since that would have been a prescription for disaster (and a sure-fire way to call attention to a filing that would otherwise flow quietly and unnoticed into the great EDGAR database sea) when everyone else wrote canned, scripted, formally stylized crap. (That doesn't, however, mean I have any use for the "plain English" rules that finally came into effect. All that did was make it so I had to write the canned scripts so they could be read by the average idiot who had no business reading compliance filings and thinking anything material was being said in the Management Discussion and Analysis of the Results of Operations.)

All of that having been said, I cannot recall ever seeing much in the way of market anomalies. In just about every circumstance, the binding relationship between risk and expected return underpinned everything that was happening.

As I've noted in the past, superstar fund managers uniformly underimpress me: when they get trotted out for financial media adulation, no one ever bothers to point to the returns they made relative to the risk compenents in their portfolios. There's nothing heroic about a wildly high return that is made at extraordinary risk. With enough leverage, any relatively ordinary investor could play risk to the hilt and maybe even come out on top of the heap.

The flip side of this is that investors who roll the dice on high-risk securities can get their clocks clean beyond their wildest dreams. That's what bearing risk is all about: expected returns. In real (inflation-adjusted) terms, the NASDAQ has been beaten in the dirt far more over the past five years than has the Dow Jones Industrial Average. Greater risk, greater expected returns... and a much bigger downside.

Anomalies exist, no doubt about it. The small-cap effect, the January effect, and a handful of others do persist; but they're the exceptions, not the rule of markets. They're part of the siren song that keeps untrained suckers jumping into the market thinking that there's such a thing as something for nothing, that excess returns, above and beyond what is commensurate with non-diversifiable risk borne, are out there just waiting to be snatched up by a genius with a PC and ten grand from a home equity loan.

Obviously, as an ethical person, I tried my best to keep such people I knew from doing something as stupid as rolling the dice in crazy places like penny stocks, options, futures, and other places they didn't belong.

Of course, I did point out to them that I'd be happy to show them how to invest in certain oil and gas projects I knew about; and of course, they still got permanently parted from their money, but that's okay: we always took them out to a good Texas steakhouse and treated them like they were our kind of guys, and that made them feel pretty darned butch for years afterward.

They got their money's worth.


The Dark Wraith is beginning to really miss the old days, now.

Wed Apr 19, 10:23:44 AM EDT  
 dread pirate roberts blogged...

"they still got permanently parted from their money, but that's okay: we always took them out to a good Texas steakhouse and treated them like they were our kind of guys, and that made them feel pretty darned butch for years afterward."

hmmmmmm. i'm beginning to see why you are a dark wraith.

Wed Apr 19, 10:49:39 AM EDT  
 Dark Wraith blogged...

Good morning, CorrespondAnt, and welcome back. I was wondering where you had been lately.

In your comment, you make a couple of salient points, perhaps implicitly. One thing is for sure: it's a whole lot easier to make a lot of money when you have a lot of money. Buffet, Lynch, and that whole cabal of fellows held up as the icons of smart investing are not in any way, shape, or form your average investors. Most importantly, the average investor certainly does not have what in portfolio theory we call "complete access to capital markets." In fact, as I now think about it, that assumption galls me to no end because it leads down a self-fulfilling road in portfolio construction and control theory: specifically, we always talk about the "marginal" investor, the person whose information is complete, whose access to capital markets is at or near the risk-free rate, and whose actions thereby drive the markets. Unfortunately, those paradigms do come close to real existence in the real world—although they don't actually have to exist as tangible individuals, but merely as models. Those cats flog the securities markets toward efficiency. I swear to God, there were a few times when I was dead certain that I'd found something that was genuinely "under-valued"; but so help me God, if it really had been, some SOB would already have found it and driven its price up before I could lay my hands to it. That's efficiency.

But there's another piece to the efficiency I saw, and it's a story that to this day brings out a hard-core bitterness in me. It's the story of venture capital. Woe was my lot if I was on the side of the original principals of a company that had something the market really was undervaluing. Consider this: you and your little group have an honest-to-goodness, really great idea; you've put your own money into it to the tune of your lives' savings, and you've got prototype. You've also got about a million bucks you'll need to go to even the first stage of actual production.

Who's going to take care of that? Your banker? Yeah, right.

You step into the world of private placements. The safest route is a Reg D 506, but you may solicit only very sophisticated investors under this scheme. They get stock, which is restricted under Rule 144, so they're going to cry crocodile tears about the all the risks they're taking on your project: business risk, illiquidity, yadda-yadda.

Your plan to sell an equity stake of 5% goes out the window. They'll take you for 90% of the control, and that's if you're lucky. The number was usually north of 95%.

You've got a choice, then. Take the money and have a shot at seeing your company and its product take off, or sit there bull-headed and refuse to surrender. Either way, you're dead. (Of course, you could always do a self-underwritten public offering for a million dollars on Reg D 504. Yeah, that always worked to raise a couple hundred bucks.)

The venture capitalists weren't geniuses. They didn't have the brilliant idea, they didn't go through Hell with their families blowing through money on a pipe dream, they didn't do a thing except to come in waving a check. That's all.

But that's all that mattered.



The Dark Wraith is now reaching into his basement of old issues he really should have tossed out years ago.

Wed Apr 19, 11:06:05 AM EDT  
 Dark Wraith blogged...

Good morning, Dread Pirate Roberts.

Here's what I learned from doing business in Texas. (And actually, it's not 'business', it's 'bidniss' anyway.) These were, at least to some extent, the operative rules I saw among the (admittedly rather unusual) fellows with whom I worked.

◊ Loud machines are good.

◊ Field work must be done in ungodly heat.

◊ The air is fresh if you can draw in a breath and not taste hydrocarbons.

◊ Red meat should still be red when it's served.

◊ Barbecued and grilled food is always better. Healthy food eaters are, by their very nature, suspect in all areas of their lives.

◊ The only setting worthwhile on the air conditioner is arctic.

◊ Every unit of additional academic training must be counterbalanced by five additional units of mach asshole; otherwise, you're a wimp.

◊ Women are allowed to bitch, but that's about all.

◊ Someone should always know someone who's got some money to invest.

◊ Always talk and act in understatement: even the totally weird should be worthy of no more than a mild "gawddamn, boy."

◊ Talk about even famous people like they're just the neighbors down the road.

◊ Act like it doesn't hurt even if a piece of machinery nearly rips your arm off and disembowels you.

◊ If it's a choice between talking about sports or sex, talk sports.

◊ Don't laugh at crude humor a guy tells in his girlfriend's presence: she'll have no problem with hurting you, too.

◊ If you say you're going to shoot someone, do so; otherwise, just call him some bad names and be done with it.

◊ Misfortune is funny. Even your own. But especially someone else's.



That's some of the rules I observed, anyway. And for God's sake, I'm just telling these rules; it's not like I thought they were good.


The Dark Wraith should probably publish a comprehensive list.

Wed Apr 19, 12:08:52 PM EDT  
 Anonymous blogged...

"The Dark Wraith's Guide to Redneck Etiquette (or How I Survived Texas)"

- oddjob

Wed Apr 19, 02:50:20 PM EDT  
 My Pet Goat blogged...

They're part of the siren song that keeps untrained suckers jumping into the market thinking that there's such a thing as something for nothing, that excess returns, above and beyond what is commensurate with non-diversifiable risk borne, are out there just waiting to be snatched up by a genius with a PC and ten grand from a home equity loan.

Gee, how come we never here the term day trading anymore?

Remember not many years ago when there was a push for some online brokers to offer dot.com IPOs directly to the everyday public joe? Any idea how many of the underwriters eventually had to defend themselves against allegations of laddering?

Wed Apr 19, 04:00:51 PM EDT  
 Dark Wraith blogged...

Ah, the sound of shareholder derivative actions being filed at the courthouse. It brings a special feeling to my old heart.

No, I think the feeling is a little lower.



The Dark Wraith laughs nervously at the far distant creaking sound of the gallows.

Wed Apr 19, 05:16:08 PM EDT  
 Dark Wraith blogged...

And I do like that title, OddJob.



The Dark Wraith might have just found his way onto The New York Times Bestsellers List.

Wed Apr 19, 05:19:10 PM EDT