|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
An irreverent Wall Street Blog
by Bill Singer Written: October 6, 2008
Many of my readers and members of the press have sought out my opinions about the current decline of Wall Street. I have tried, and not always successfully, to find ways to explain some of the more complex issues that I see. There is no simple explanation and no single cause to point at. Nonetheless, there are some general themes that need to be brought to the public's attention, and I will try to explain my personal perspective, as follows: Oh, They Built the Ship Titanic About 100 years ago, the White Star Line built a line of cruise ships known as the Olympic-class. The first to be built was the Olympic, which was retired in 1935. The second ship was the ill-famed Titanic. In 1912 it hit an iceberg and sunk, taking 1,517 lives. The lore of this vessel is well known and likely need not be repeated; however, let me set forth just a few salient points:
Consider the following well-documented facts:
Armed with all of the above findings, the third of the Olympic-class ships, the Britannic, was retrofitted. Question: Would you book passage on the Britannic? Full Speed Ahead? I believe that powerful market forces aligned to propagate a myth that "household names" (i.e., brokerage firms and banks that advertised on national television) were somehow more honest and safer than those lousy little mom-and-pop institutions that helped build your community and gave your parents the dollars to open and expand their businesses. You were manipulated over recent years to associate smaller community banks and broker-dealers with pennystock hustlers and boiler-room fraudsters. Humongous financial institutions made massive campaign contributions to favored politicos, who did their bidding. Those large firms also used their influence throughout the regulatory structure to advance their goals at the expense of their smaller competitors. I can't be polite about this: the regulators were either willing lackeys or clueless stooges. And, boy, did you lambs follow the Judas goats to slaughter. You bought in to the nonsense, whole hog. Bigger-is-better was the mantra and you sat by as they shuttered the little shops downtown and built the massive shopping center that sucked your local economy dry. Minimum wages. No benefits. No competition. Traffic congestion. You got three t-shirts for $15, but the local mills closed and the hospital's emergency staff was overwhelmed with uninsured patients. They told you it was progress. You understood, sort of--they said that we were evolving from a manufacturing economy to a service one. Sounded good to you. Sort of made sense. Then, oddly, the computer manufacturing jobs went overseas...but they also took the telecommunication service jobs. The local bank shuttered and the larger commercial replacement was spanking new, but when you asked for a small business loan, they were too big to be bothered with you. You were thrilled when that financial superstore opened next door. Their television ads showed how they would show up at your kid's wedding and at your retirement party. They told you what you wanted to hear: double-digit returns, online investing, computerized portfolio modeling, and insured accounts. It's what they didn't tell you that came back to hurt you. They didn't tell you that the financial products they sold to you were ticking time bombs. They didn't tell you that the firm itself would soon collapse under the weight of its own foolish speculation. They didn't tell you that when you needed to raise $2 million to expand -- a sum that your former broker happily handled at his independent/regional firm -- that you were of no importance to them. You must have missed the commercial where they just said "sorry, not interested in servicing local yokels." Of course, they did raise the $30 million for your national competitor, who opened up a few blocks away and drove you out of business. Who hit what? Let's at least agree on one historic fact: The iceberg did not seek out and attack the Titanic. No, the ship sailed into the iceberg. The failure to promptly process many warnings and the willingness to sacrifice safety for speed put the ship on a deadly collision course. Design flaws based upon false assumptions and deficient construction ultimately sunk the vessel. Inadequate safety standards--even if compliant with the letter of the law--prevented the saving of many lives. Much the same could be said of the wreckage of Wall Street. The world's markets sped full-speed ahead into the path of icebergs. But, not to worry, they chided us. Our state-of-the-art technology protects investors with layers of regulations and regulators. Our floors of computers monitor trading and we will pounce on any anomalies. For over three-quarters of a century, the post-Depression regulatory schema of the Federal Reserve, the SEC, the CFTC, the state regulators, and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) prevented the ship of Wall Street from sinking--it might list to one side, but it would never sink. They told you that. They promised you that. You rested comfortably on that assurance. Alas, Wall Street still ran smack dab into a killer iceberg. No regulator sounded the alarm until it was too late -- and now we are hearing the bells for "abandon ship." None of the vaunted new market architecture worked: the hulls and bulkheads are now flooding, and we see too few lifeboats. And woe be we survivors in the icy waters if the Carpathia is the nearest boat. How Ironic As asked earlier, knowing what you do about the Titanic, knowing that its younger sister ship was retrofitted after the famed sinking, would you book passage on the RMS Britannic? And as I now ask you, knowing all you do about the present market meltdown, knowing that the politicians and regulators who christened the flawed ship that is sinking are now trying to retrofit our markets, would you buy stock or bonds today? One Last ThingFinancial panics such as our current situation are fraught with ironies.
In 1916, the Britannic became a hospital ship during World War I and hit a mine--and sunk within 55 minutes! What's the point? I don't really know--perhaps there isn't one. Still, makes you wonder. Written: September 30, 2008
In listening to the ongoing debate about how to best revive our failing economy, I keep hearing pundits blaming Bush, Paulson, Pelosi, and others for failing to sell the deal to Main Street. Frankly, that complaint gives me pause. Seems to me that among the most pernicious problems with our society is the persistent patter of salespersons and their sales pitches. We can't sit down anywhere anymore in peace. You turn on your computer, there are ads. You sit down for dinner, and your phone rings with unwanted solicitations. You try to relax in your living room and watch a sporting event or movie on television, and every few minutes you are being bombarded with advertisements. And it gets worse. It's on the buses. It's on the trains and subways. It's on the taxis. It's on the billboards. It's in the mail. It is unending and unstoppable and seeks you out with unyielding persistence. Much of what we see is an effort to fabricate demand. If you really think about it, how many new-and-improved products are either new or improved? And how many of these must-have products do we even need, but for the imagery of the advertisement? Will my life be worse off if I don't have a gadget that plugs into an electrical outlet in my home and sprays a chemical fragrance? Is there a reason to couple the launch of a new automobile model with a commercial with skimpily clad young women who swim in million-dollar pools with designer dresses on or dance with abandon in some underground club? Is our economic system so questionably constructed that it requires endless worship at the altar of advertising? Buy. Buy. Buy. Sell. Sell. Sell. No rest. No pause. Perhaps some rough beast, it's hour come at last, has awakened among the American people (with all due attribution to Yeats). Maybe the reason the politicos failed to sell the Wall Street bail-out to Main Street is because folks are just burned out and tired of buying everything that's sold to them. Maybe the consumer is just fed up with the hard sell -- especially since much of the present economic crisis was foisted upon us by the fast-talking salespersons from the very brokerage firms that are now freefalling into the dark unknown. Perhaps this is not a failure of the White House or Treasury or even Congress to sell the American taxpayer on the inherent wisdom of the plan. Quite possibly, this deal couldn't be sold because too many just aren't buying it, and aren't buying much of anything anymore. One of the unintended lessons of skyrocketing fuel prices and plummeting home values is that we learned to make due with less, much less. And if we stopped the extra weekend driving and sat in our homes with a sweater against the chill and opened the windows against the heat and didn't buy the $8 cup of coffee or the $200 pair of sneakers, then maybe, just maybe, some of those brokerage firms and banks can go by the wayside and we can button up against the impact. Who knows? Maybe all it took was one glimpse of the ersatz Wizard of Oz and for all the pulling shut of the curtain, the image and its reality are forever revealed. Sadly, I fear with every fiber of my intellect that an ignorance and a hardening of the heart has hit our country, and that our nation's failure to prepare contingency plans against this crisis and the failure to timely respond with a substantive solution augers a frightening future. However, I also accept the fact that the inability to sell and the unwillingness to buy may be an equally valid explanation. It may be that we no longer believe what we're being told by those doing the telling, and that we have crossed over an unseen but still historic line: we are willing to make more of less. If that be the case, perhaps it is not all doom and gloom. Still, I am uneasy. Which reminds me of yet another ominous line of Yeats. The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity. Written: September 26, 2008
I was recently quoted in a Forbes.com article as stating that the problem with Wall Street's regulation is that
The response to that comment has been overwhelmingly positive and supportive, and I clearly seem to have touched a nerve. Nonetheless, I would like to clarify a point. I have tremendous respect for many leading industry regulators. SEC Chair Cox's life story is inspiring. He has an MBA and a JD from Harvard, he is a cancer survivor, and he reportedly suffers intense daily pain from a back injury. By most reports he is a personable individual who served his Congressional district admirably and assumed the helm of the SEC at a time of great national need. Treasury Secretary Paulson is similarly admirable. Also Ivy League educated, he literally rose through the ranks at Goldman Sachs and was highly regarded by his industry peers. For my part, I think his recent conduct during this credit crisis has been stellar. The main negative voiced against him is that he lacks charisma--that he lacks the ability to persuade the American public to get on board with his "bail out" (yes, I know he eschews that description) of Wall Street. Sadly, charisma is just not something that most folks can learn. You either have it or you don't. Frankly, I think we place far too much weight on the glow of personality these days, and far too little emphasis on competency. As a suffering New York Mets fan, I know that there is only so much a manager can do. If your pitchers can't throw strikeouts, you lose. If your pitchers walk in the winning run, you lose. If your batters can't execute a bunt to move the winning run into scoring position, you lose. If your batters strike out while swinging at balls, you lose. A bench of overpaid, under-performers can pose an insurmountable challenge for the finest manager. Our regulatory system strikes me as just such a bench. We have too many veterans past their prime who are just going through the motions and collecting an undeserved, fat paycheck. We have too many kids thrust into starting positions before they are ready. We have far too many mediocre players who are platooned in an ad hoc effort to just win one game, any game. While the folks in charge may be highly qualified and with impeccable credentials, the supporting cast is frequently not cut from the same cloth. Those of us who have worked on Wall Street for many years know the score. The friend of a well placed friend of an influential politician or Wall Street fat cat gets hired for a critical managerial job. The lower level supervisor gets promoted because he or she belongs to the same golf club as the boss. Another manager is clownishly inept and derided by both outsiders and in-house staff, but wound up with the promotion as a result of outlasting more competent folks who move on and out--the Peter Principle. When you riddle a system with unqualified managers who are leap frogged over more deserving staff, you demoralize the truly dedicated civil servants. Once our bureaucracies cease being meritocracies, we public citizens pay a terrible price. Look around you for proof. As our government became more bloated, the ability to hide such misfits became more difficult. Moreover, the consequences of a system riddled with cronyism and favoritism became more dire. Two planes flew into the World Trade Center and one into the Pentagon because some managers couldn't work together or get their job done. I'm sorry, but that's how I feel about that! Wall Street is crumbling around us because some politicos craved the spotlight and had designs upon higher office. Instead of demanding more air time, they should have demanded more competency and results from their staff. Similarly, those in charge of regulating our markets seem to spend far too much time on the speaking circuit that often takes them to luxurious spas or overseas seminars. While such executives are jetting all over, their agencies are cutting back on salaries and needed upgrades. No regulator should have had the time in the past two years to be away from his or her desk talking up their book, as we on the Street say. Successful regulation requires full-time regulators dedicated to full-time regulation. This isn't an avocation or part-time job. Let us hope that by Sunday evening when the Asian markets open, that those elected to the House and Senate have the talent to do their jobs and fix this mess. Then, let us demand that we trash the regulatory system that brought us to this precipice, and let us re-stock the new regulatory system with competent folks deserving of their jobs and prepared to discharge their mandate with fairness and effectiveness. I don't know about you but I am sick and tired of "politicians" and wish that we had a few "statesmen" on the job. Alas, I fear that those folks were on the last train out. As I recently said, these are times that demand a Moses and a Lincoln. We got a Spitzer and a Bush. THIS WEBSITE MAY BE DEEMED AN ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT OR SOLICITATION IN SOME JURISDICTIONS. AS SUCH, PLEASE NOTE THAT THE HIRING OF AN ATTORNEY IS AN IMPORTANT DECISION THAT SHOULD NOT BE BASED SOLELY UPON ADVERTISEMENTS. MOREOVER, PRIOR RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE A SIMILAR OUTCOME. NEITHER THE TRANSMISSION NOR YOUR RECEIPT OF ANY CONTENT ON THIS WEBSITE WILL CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SENDER AND RECEIVER. WEBSITE SUBSCRIBERS AND ONLINE READERS SHOULD NOT TAKE, OR REFRAIN FROM TAKING, ANY ACTION BASED UPON CONTENT ON THIS WEBSITE. THE CONTENT PUBLISHED ON THIS WEBSITE REPRESENTS THE PERSONAL VIEWS OF THE AUTHOR AND NOT NECESSARILY THE VIEWS OF ANY LAW FIRM OR ORGANIZATION WITH WHICH HE MAY BE AFFILIATED. ALL CONTENT IS PROVIDED AS GENERAL INFORMATION ONLY AND MUST NOT BE RELIED UPON AS LEGAL ADVICE. CONTENT ON THIS WEBSITE MAY BE INCORRECT FOR YOUR JURISDICTION AND THE UNDERLYING RULES, REGULATIONS AND/OR DECISIONS MAY NO LONGER BE CONTROLLING OR PERSUASIVE AS A MATTER OF LAW OR INTERPRETATION.
|
|
|||||||||||||||