Answer truthfully.
Who can you name first, the Federal Reserve Chairman or Brad Pitt's wife?
That's what I thought. And while you're at it, why don't you take some time to explain to me the inner-working of the Federal Reserve system, like the number of branches it has, who the board of governors are and the primary role of the Federal Reserve. Psst. By the way, it is NOT the job of the Federal Reserve to insure your money at the bank. That's the FDIC, who we will mention later.
Not many Americans get beyond answering Angelina Jolie, by the way. Which is deliberate in design in my opinion.
After all, if you ran an organization that was created by Congress but wasn't responsible for opening its' books for audit, would you be in a hurry to make the organization well-known? That's exactly what are friends at the Federal Reserve are suggesting, by the way, when they appeared earlier this week in front of the House Financial Services Committee. The committee is suggesting the Federal Reserve open the books for an audit conducted by the GAO (General Accounting Office.) After all, it is our money and we would like to see exactly how it's being spent from time to time. And yes, I agree with Barney Frank on this one. Representative Frank is proposing this legislation.
The prevailing mentality seems to question what the Fed is hiding and why they don't want to open the books up for review by the very body that created their existence. Our friends at the Fed maintain the position that theirs "is a politically neutral position" and any dabbling in the books would have an adverse impact on the economy.
Psst. Excuse me, Mr. Bernake? Take a look around. The economy already is in shambles and by the way, I pay your salary and am your boss. Remember that Obama guy who re-appointed you? Yeah, well Joe Taxpayer voted him in and it's his job to make sure you're doing things right.
My thoughts? It's deeper than that. And at the risk of getting too technical, I'm going to tie-in previously mentioned FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) and our friend Shiela Bair. You're going to be hearing a lot from Sheila in the coming months, so I'd get used to hearing her name. She runs the FDIC, which is an insurance company in place that allows us to feel safe and secure knowing our money will be paid back to us if our bank should fail. The banks fund the insurance policy through their membership, and the organization was created in response to the great depression rush on the banks. Naturally the thought process was to avoid another run on banks when depositors felt unsure about their bank's stability.
Guess what, folks? They are running out of money at the FDIC. Sheila and her group had a balance of just over $45 billion in June of 2008 according to Fortune Magazine. As of close of business June of this year, the balance clung to about $10 billion. Gulp.
And with more banks set to fail (to date the FDIC has allowed 94 banks to fail this year and 25 last year) the FDIC is getting precariously close to the edge of needing it's own bailout. By the way, the FDIC has a list of over 400 troubled banks that could go under at any minute.
Shazam! Flash back to our friend Ben and his merry men at the Federal Reserve Board. The Fed has extended an open line of credit for up to $100 billion to the FDIC in case of emergency (think of it like a Visa card for you and a credit line of $1 million.) Additionally, new legislation passed this year allows the FDIC to hit that line for up to $500 billion in an extreme emergency. This is the same Fed that gave bailout funds, er, I mean TARP funds to banks like PNC so that they could buyout ailing banks at a 5% rate. Banks like National City, who otherwise would have already imploded and further hit the FDIC wallet, further reducing that $10 billion balance. Odds are good there's another bank of significance on the brink (Cough Cough... Citi....)
So back to our beginning question and resulting debate: Why is the Federal Reserve really afraid of opening up its' books and allowing the General Accounting Office to take a peek under the hood? Could it really be to avoid political bias, or could it be more a reason of fear. Fear that there is no oil in the engine, the battery is dead, the brake lines have been cut, the transmission is leaking and oh yeah, by the way, it's out of windshield wiper fluid too. I propose the latter.
One final note to ponder, and then I'll let you go this fine morning. The Federal Reserve raises funds through auctions of Treasury Bills and notes, also known as DEBT. You issue debt when you don't have enough money to meet short-term expenses. Joe Taxpayer is footing the bill for this.
Let the banks implode. Get rid of the Federal Reserve and let the FDIC figure it's own way out of this one. Enough of the fiscal parenting for lousy monetary policies. Let's get back to basics and provide budgets that are real and attainable and a government that is there to merely implement the will of the people.
I can't believe I actually agree with Barney Frank!
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Banking on our uncertainty
In an story that caught about a ten second blurb this week on Friday morning, the Federal Reserve is working on a plan to not only monitor pay compensation but also one that will allow the Fed to adjust or change the pay practices at Wall Street financial firms. Not just firms that accepted bailout funds, but any financial firm that the Fed deems necessary based upon the firm's excessive risk-taking practices. Also note that the language does not simply limit the pay for executives at the firm. It has the right to limit the pay to anyone that works at the firm according to a Wall Street Journal report.
Excuse me, comrade?
Where does one begin in an attempt to shoot holes in this idea?
Perhaps the easiest target is the Federal Reserve itself. You know the group, right? The same group that sets interest rates in order to manipulate the economy, avoiding recessions, inflation, speculative practices, steering the U.S. to continued economic prosperity and ensure that banks continue to lend to businesses and indivuals that deserve a loan. How's that working so far, Mr. Bernake?
Maybe it's better to look at the Fed based upon the past. The same history that gave former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson a blank check to bailout Wall Street firms (of which I was critical, I might add.) The same history that kept interest rates artificially low for too long in order to allow the gluttonous behavior to continue. The same history that took budget surpluses at the end of the 1990's to a whopping $11 trillion debt. Again I ask, how's that working?
Consider the impact of keeping overnight rates at 0% (not a typo) since December of last year and no sign that they are going up anytime soon, and then asking a banker to not take some risk with 'free' money. Oh yeah, while you're at, throw in the fact that the Fed is asking banks to make loans to get the economy rolling.
Oh, maybe I'm being too harsh.
Surely there's some good, right?
Ah yes, the same Federal Reserve that has partnered with ACORN since 1977 to enforce bank compliance with the Community Reinvestment Act. In mortgage land, CRA loans (as they are called) are also known as 'subprime' mortgage loans to folks that generally would not qualify for a home based upon credit or ability to repay. How's that working?
To be fair, I hate the banks. Ask any of my students, and they will tell you the adjectives I use to describe most bankers are "lazy, fat and boring. And lazy. Did I mention lazy?"
But to be true to my roots, I also believe in capitalism, entrepreneurial spirit and the corporate structure. If a publicly traded bank like, oh I dunno, Bank of America, wants to make loans it thinks will perform and reward shareholders, shouldn't they be allowed to do that? After all, it's their job to maximize shareholder wealth - not anyone else's wealth. SHAREHOLDER wealth. If the shareholders think the CEO and board are doing a lousy job by taking too much risk with too little potential return, they can (and often will) fire the CEO and replace the board.
Similarly, if the U.S. government wants to get into the banking business, they have two ready-made platforms to execute that plan while remaining outside the circle of overseeing pay for private firms. Maybe the names Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ring a bell in your head. If the Fed wants to be in banking, turn Fannie and her brother Freddie into large national banks that are required to adhere to strict compensation, risk and corporate management guidelines. Make them play by the same liquidity rules as the other banks and let all of the banks duke it out. Guess who will win, comrades? Yep. You, me and cousin Vinny due to increased competition and a level playing field.
What's next? Will the Fed determine it's their job to monitor and adjust the pay for professional athletes? Does Big Ben really deserve $110 million to throw a football? After all, he's taking a LOT of risk going out there against 330 pound men eager to rip him to shreds. Maybe they will think that doctors should only earn "X" per year regardless of their specialty, or that accountants cannot earn more than "Y." The system is already in place around the country in the form of government pay scales and in many instances labor-contracts, which primarily exist between governments and their employees, the exceptions being large unions like the auto-workers, mine workers, steel workers, etc.
Farfetched? We already have a minimum wage. Doesn't it stand to reason there could be a maximum wage? And while we are accustom to having a minimum wage to assist those with few valuable skills and protect workers from abuse, how does it feel knowing the shoe could be on the other foot, limiting your skills and placing a maximum value on what you have to offer? It's not as crazy as it sounds, folks. And it's happening and a rapid pace.
I'm not in the predicting business, but here's one for ya.
There are going to be three very large national banks in the next three to five years that are entirely government run. Their names are Bank of American, Chase and Citigroup. They will be merged and monitored by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who will report directly to the Federal Reserve Board. The Federal Reserve Board is going to become a fourth branch of government.
Hold onto your wallet and get out your voter card to make sure it's still either Republican, Democrat, Independent and not Socialist or Communist.
Excuse me, comrade?
Where does one begin in an attempt to shoot holes in this idea?
Perhaps the easiest target is the Federal Reserve itself. You know the group, right? The same group that sets interest rates in order to manipulate the economy, avoiding recessions, inflation, speculative practices, steering the U.S. to continued economic prosperity and ensure that banks continue to lend to businesses and indivuals that deserve a loan. How's that working so far, Mr. Bernake?
Maybe it's better to look at the Fed based upon the past. The same history that gave former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson a blank check to bailout Wall Street firms (of which I was critical, I might add.) The same history that kept interest rates artificially low for too long in order to allow the gluttonous behavior to continue. The same history that took budget surpluses at the end of the 1990's to a whopping $11 trillion debt. Again I ask, how's that working?
Consider the impact of keeping overnight rates at 0% (not a typo) since December of last year and no sign that they are going up anytime soon, and then asking a banker to not take some risk with 'free' money. Oh yeah, while you're at, throw in the fact that the Fed is asking banks to make loans to get the economy rolling.
Oh, maybe I'm being too harsh.
Surely there's some good, right?
Ah yes, the same Federal Reserve that has partnered with ACORN since 1977 to enforce bank compliance with the Community Reinvestment Act. In mortgage land, CRA loans (as they are called) are also known as 'subprime' mortgage loans to folks that generally would not qualify for a home based upon credit or ability to repay. How's that working?
To be fair, I hate the banks. Ask any of my students, and they will tell you the adjectives I use to describe most bankers are "lazy, fat and boring. And lazy. Did I mention lazy?"
But to be true to my roots, I also believe in capitalism, entrepreneurial spirit and the corporate structure. If a publicly traded bank like, oh I dunno, Bank of America, wants to make loans it thinks will perform and reward shareholders, shouldn't they be allowed to do that? After all, it's their job to maximize shareholder wealth - not anyone else's wealth. SHAREHOLDER wealth. If the shareholders think the CEO and board are doing a lousy job by taking too much risk with too little potential return, they can (and often will) fire the CEO and replace the board.
Similarly, if the U.S. government wants to get into the banking business, they have two ready-made platforms to execute that plan while remaining outside the circle of overseeing pay for private firms. Maybe the names Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ring a bell in your head. If the Fed wants to be in banking, turn Fannie and her brother Freddie into large national banks that are required to adhere to strict compensation, risk and corporate management guidelines. Make them play by the same liquidity rules as the other banks and let all of the banks duke it out. Guess who will win, comrades? Yep. You, me and cousin Vinny due to increased competition and a level playing field.
What's next? Will the Fed determine it's their job to monitor and adjust the pay for professional athletes? Does Big Ben really deserve $110 million to throw a football? After all, he's taking a LOT of risk going out there against 330 pound men eager to rip him to shreds. Maybe they will think that doctors should only earn "X" per year regardless of their specialty, or that accountants cannot earn more than "Y." The system is already in place around the country in the form of government pay scales and in many instances labor-contracts, which primarily exist between governments and their employees, the exceptions being large unions like the auto-workers, mine workers, steel workers, etc.
Farfetched? We already have a minimum wage. Doesn't it stand to reason there could be a maximum wage? And while we are accustom to having a minimum wage to assist those with few valuable skills and protect workers from abuse, how does it feel knowing the shoe could be on the other foot, limiting your skills and placing a maximum value on what you have to offer? It's not as crazy as it sounds, folks. And it's happening and a rapid pace.
I'm not in the predicting business, but here's one for ya.
There are going to be three very large national banks in the next three to five years that are entirely government run. Their names are Bank of American, Chase and Citigroup. They will be merged and monitored by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who will report directly to the Federal Reserve Board. The Federal Reserve Board is going to become a fourth branch of government.
Hold onto your wallet and get out your voter card to make sure it's still either Republican, Democrat, Independent and not Socialist or Communist.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Takin' care of business
Have you hit the skids yet? After all, the kids are back at school, school buses are clogging up the highways and nights are getting longer. Sometimes just for kicks my wife and I will hang out on the porch when it gets dark early and pretend that it's still summer. It's not, of course, but pretending is fun.
Pretending is not fun, however, when a business is at risk of making game-changing mistakes.
A business owner recently called me and asked for my evaluation of their current cashflows so I rolled up my sleeves and dug into some antiquated spreadsheets about customers, an unaudited profit and loss statement and an unaudited balance sheet. If those three things sound sorta, you know, casual, it's because they are. In short, it's like keeping your checkbook balance on a paper napkin or a grocery receipt.
Regardless, I did my best and came to the conclusion that only about 30% of the business promised to him by his customers actually resulted in a sale, yet the staff had to go through about 80% of the promised business. They were spending a ton of time working on potential sales that would never transpire, as history showed that the customer-base failed to deliver most of the time. Of course, there were a few notable exceptions, which I pointed out in my moderately formal report back to the client. The staff was frustrated because they felt like they were working too hard and too long. And they were correct. Unfortunately the company was not profiting from their efforts.
Upon delivering the report, I followed-up with a phone call and a lengthy discussion in order to point out some significant cost saving measures. The culmination of the call came when I suggested something radical - eliminating over half of his customers and focusing on the remaining customers that could deliver promised sales on a fairly regular basis. A final suggestion was to perhaps remove one or more of the positions that served the customers since there would be far fewer potential sales to screen in order to get to an actual sale.
To say I was pleased with my findings, both quantitative and qualitative, would be an understatement.
"Christian, I see your point but I'm thinking of adding staff so that we can hit the break-even point," was his response.
(Crickets chirping here, please.)
"Chris, are you there?"
It's as if my hard data and suggestions weren't even heard or acknowledged, and in fact, I was living in opposite world. I had suggested firing clients and staff, focusing on the core business and streamlining things - not taking on additional payroll, headaches and a bigger nut to crack.
Pretending is not a good option if you are a business owner. In fact, it's not a good option for anyone (unless you are a girl pretending to be a fairy princess or a kid that wants to throw the winning touchdown pass in the Super Bowl.)
But we all pretend, don't we? We pretend that a relationship that has been horrible for twenty years is going to change, or that a job we hate will change once the economy turns around or perhaps a child/loved one that has been a hell-raiser will finally come around.
In relationships we call this 'vested,' or in poker we call it 'pot-committed.' In short it means that emotionally it's too hard to remove ourselves and it seems the only logical thing to to is see it through the (already known)outcome.
As a business owner, it's imperative to never become enamored with an idea that stops working or your 'baby.' Focus on the bottom line and once it goes to red, get out immediately.
GM, Chrysler, National Record Mart, Asbestos, Polaroid One Shots, typewriters and carbon copies were all great ideas too. Now they are all either firmly planted along the landing strip of business progress or approaching quickly. Sometimes (most times) technology impedes our ability to keep doing the same thing and make the same profits. The runway is covered with failed landing attempts.
Recognize when the business changes and prepare to make drastic changes to meet the challenge, or prepare to close shop. Those are the only alternatives in business, and in life, actually.
I have a friend that says "if I have to kiss a frog, I kiss the frog and move on."
I urge each of you to find the frogs remaining in your life, kiss them goodbye and move on. Only princesses get to kiss frogs and have them turn into a Prince.
Pretending is not fun, however, when a business is at risk of making game-changing mistakes.
A business owner recently called me and asked for my evaluation of their current cashflows so I rolled up my sleeves and dug into some antiquated spreadsheets about customers, an unaudited profit and loss statement and an unaudited balance sheet. If those three things sound sorta, you know, casual, it's because they are. In short, it's like keeping your checkbook balance on a paper napkin or a grocery receipt.
Regardless, I did my best and came to the conclusion that only about 30% of the business promised to him by his customers actually resulted in a sale, yet the staff had to go through about 80% of the promised business. They were spending a ton of time working on potential sales that would never transpire, as history showed that the customer-base failed to deliver most of the time. Of course, there were a few notable exceptions, which I pointed out in my moderately formal report back to the client. The staff was frustrated because they felt like they were working too hard and too long. And they were correct. Unfortunately the company was not profiting from their efforts.
Upon delivering the report, I followed-up with a phone call and a lengthy discussion in order to point out some significant cost saving measures. The culmination of the call came when I suggested something radical - eliminating over half of his customers and focusing on the remaining customers that could deliver promised sales on a fairly regular basis. A final suggestion was to perhaps remove one or more of the positions that served the customers since there would be far fewer potential sales to screen in order to get to an actual sale.
To say I was pleased with my findings, both quantitative and qualitative, would be an understatement.
"Christian, I see your point but I'm thinking of adding staff so that we can hit the break-even point," was his response.
(Crickets chirping here, please.)
"Chris, are you there?"
It's as if my hard data and suggestions weren't even heard or acknowledged, and in fact, I was living in opposite world. I had suggested firing clients and staff, focusing on the core business and streamlining things - not taking on additional payroll, headaches and a bigger nut to crack.
Pretending is not a good option if you are a business owner. In fact, it's not a good option for anyone (unless you are a girl pretending to be a fairy princess or a kid that wants to throw the winning touchdown pass in the Super Bowl.)
But we all pretend, don't we? We pretend that a relationship that has been horrible for twenty years is going to change, or that a job we hate will change once the economy turns around or perhaps a child/loved one that has been a hell-raiser will finally come around.
In relationships we call this 'vested,' or in poker we call it 'pot-committed.' In short it means that emotionally it's too hard to remove ourselves and it seems the only logical thing to to is see it through the (already known)outcome.
As a business owner, it's imperative to never become enamored with an idea that stops working or your 'baby.' Focus on the bottom line and once it goes to red, get out immediately.
GM, Chrysler, National Record Mart, Asbestos, Polaroid One Shots, typewriters and carbon copies were all great ideas too. Now they are all either firmly planted along the landing strip of business progress or approaching quickly. Sometimes (most times) technology impedes our ability to keep doing the same thing and make the same profits. The runway is covered with failed landing attempts.
Recognize when the business changes and prepare to make drastic changes to meet the challenge, or prepare to close shop. Those are the only alternatives in business, and in life, actually.
I have a friend that says "if I have to kiss a frog, I kiss the frog and move on."
I urge each of you to find the frogs remaining in your life, kiss them goodbye and move on. Only princesses get to kiss frogs and have them turn into a Prince.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Labor of love
Happy Labor Day folks. The deliberate writing and delivery of this blog indicates that while I appreciate the day off, I probably don't need it right now. After all, the kids have been in school exactly one week, I've been working exactly three weeks and football season hasn't even started so there's no reason to need a Monday off right now. But I digress.
At the risk of becoming one of those nasty, right-winged, hatred filled, venomous fear-mongers, however, I think a few minutes should be spent on just how much it costs to run a business before we simply kick back enjoy a cold beer and some potato chips this afternoon sticking it to 'the man.'
First and foremost, please remember that 'the man' is risking everything so that others can have a job; one that supports a family, pays a mortgage, puts new wheels on the minivan, braces on little Suzie and maybe even creates memories from Disney World or the beach each summer. According the the Small Business Administration, 80% of the businesses in the U.S. are classified as small businesses as well, so we're not talking Enron, MCI, AIG (fill in the blank of your favorite dirtball CEO here.) We're talking middle class America - machine shops, pizza shops, lawn care, funeral homes and small industrial companies.
Now on to the financial facts.
In the U.S. we have a progressive tax, which is accountant-speak for "the more you make the more you pay." We also have something called a marginal tax rate, which is any amount above a certain limit but not as high as the next bracket. For corporations this total tax rate can be as low as 15% on the first $50,000 of taxable income to as high as 39% on income of $100,000. This is tax corporations pay at the federal level.
Naturally states want their take, too. The national average state income tax is about 6.5%, but we don't like to be average here in Pennsylvania. As a result, corporations in the Keystone State pay 9.9% corporate income tax. To be fair, a portion of the federal income tax can be eliminated when a company pays the state taxes, but according to the Tax Foundation, in 2008 Pennsylvania corporations paid a combined effective tax rate of nearly 42%, second only to Iowa. This is 3.5% more than a company in Japan, by the way, and a full 4% less than a company located in Germany and 6% more than a company in Canada (aren't they supposed to be taxed higher than us?)
Okay. So you're not good with percentages. I am, though. These figures show that if you have a company in Pennsylvania that has $100,000 in taxable income the CEO takes home (drumroll please).... a whopping $58,000!
The really great thing is that the corporate owners, also known as shareholders, get to pay taxes on their dividends too! This is called double-taxation if you're keeping score at home.
So let's go back to 'the man' and see how he's feeling right now. By the way, he (or she, to be fair) is probably only taking part of the day off since there is work to be done, payroll to process, paperwork to file or orders to be filled. Is it worth the risk to own a business, putting your personal livelihood, your kids future, your spouse's trust, on the line so that others can argue over personal days, vacation time, call in when it snows, etc.? I don't know.
According to CNN employers lost about $900 million in lost revenue during March Madness as a result of employees trolling the Internet to catch up on scores, fill in brackets, etc. Lost revenue is even higher for fantasy football.
It's enough to make me tired and need a day off. Hey, wait. That's what Labor Day is for!
At the risk of becoming one of those nasty, right-winged, hatred filled, venomous fear-mongers, however, I think a few minutes should be spent on just how much it costs to run a business before we simply kick back enjoy a cold beer and some potato chips this afternoon sticking it to 'the man.'
First and foremost, please remember that 'the man' is risking everything so that others can have a job; one that supports a family, pays a mortgage, puts new wheels on the minivan, braces on little Suzie and maybe even creates memories from Disney World or the beach each summer. According the the Small Business Administration, 80% of the businesses in the U.S. are classified as small businesses as well, so we're not talking Enron, MCI, AIG (fill in the blank of your favorite dirtball CEO here.) We're talking middle class America - machine shops, pizza shops, lawn care, funeral homes and small industrial companies.
Now on to the financial facts.
In the U.S. we have a progressive tax, which is accountant-speak for "the more you make the more you pay." We also have something called a marginal tax rate, which is any amount above a certain limit but not as high as the next bracket. For corporations this total tax rate can be as low as 15% on the first $50,000 of taxable income to as high as 39% on income of $100,000. This is tax corporations pay at the federal level.
Naturally states want their take, too. The national average state income tax is about 6.5%, but we don't like to be average here in Pennsylvania. As a result, corporations in the Keystone State pay 9.9% corporate income tax. To be fair, a portion of the federal income tax can be eliminated when a company pays the state taxes, but according to the Tax Foundation, in 2008 Pennsylvania corporations paid a combined effective tax rate of nearly 42%, second only to Iowa. This is 3.5% more than a company in Japan, by the way, and a full 4% less than a company located in Germany and 6% more than a company in Canada (aren't they supposed to be taxed higher than us?)
Okay. So you're not good with percentages. I am, though. These figures show that if you have a company in Pennsylvania that has $100,000 in taxable income the CEO takes home (drumroll please).... a whopping $58,000!
The really great thing is that the corporate owners, also known as shareholders, get to pay taxes on their dividends too! This is called double-taxation if you're keeping score at home.
So let's go back to 'the man' and see how he's feeling right now. By the way, he (or she, to be fair) is probably only taking part of the day off since there is work to be done, payroll to process, paperwork to file or orders to be filled. Is it worth the risk to own a business, putting your personal livelihood, your kids future, your spouse's trust, on the line so that others can argue over personal days, vacation time, call in when it snows, etc.? I don't know.
According to CNN employers lost about $900 million in lost revenue during March Madness as a result of employees trolling the Internet to catch up on scores, fill in brackets, etc. Lost revenue is even higher for fantasy football.
It's enough to make me tired and need a day off. Hey, wait. That's what Labor Day is for!
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Lions, Tigers and Bears...and Black Swans?
I recently finished reading a book titled "Fooled by Randomness" by Professor Nassim Taleb. Taleb teaches Risk Engineering at NYU and is a former trader. He's a smart guy by any measure.
Taleb has spent most of his adult-life analyzing risk, learning to avoid risk and learning to profit from extraordinary circumstances. In finance they call these events "Black Swans;" the rare combination of a set of extraordinary events unfolding in the perfect order to create massive destruction to financial markets, models and financial plans, even by the most astute investor. For my friends in Western Pennsylvania, think of "Albino deer" or "Pittsburgh Pirates winning a pennant" and you'll understand how rare these occurences happen.
In short, Taleb also has been able to provide some evidence that we humans do a lousy job learning from the past, although we're more than capable of looking backwards after an event and criticizing the participants. If you have any doubt, simply listen to any call in sports show that takes calls from Monday morning quarterbacks analyzing what went wrong. They seldom offer a "how to make it better" solution, though.
Looking around and reading a recent letter addressed to President Obama from Taleb, I think it's time to recognize the Black Swan that might be in the room, cleverly disguised as indebtedness. In his letter, Taleb correctly points out that debt leaves little, if any, room for mistakes even in the best circumstances. Quoting the Roman proverb, "happy is he who owes nothing," I believe that the recent actions taken by all of our legislators have done nothing to stop the Black Swan from having offspring.
When you consider the fact that so much of our world is interdependent upon a million other fragments of society, the ability to identify potential hazards and trickle effects becomes nearly impossible to measure. (Measuring is what I like to do, by the way.) But how can one measure the impact of adding $9 trillion to the ever-expanding debt, which will exceed $20 trillion in ten years or less. How can adding debt to an already precarious position benefit anyone in the long run?
Taleb also correctly points out that many of the 'experts' are the same folks that created models that got us into the current (and most of the past) messes we are in today. Relying upon them to help solve the problem is merely a result of their own arrogance. Guess what arrogance leads to - more black swan events. Arrogance blinds us to our own predisposed prejudices, biases and flaws. Arrogance leads to group-think and herd mentality. Arrogance will lead us off of a cliff.
Cash for clunkers rewarded folks who bought vehicles that got lousy gas mileage. The bank bailouts rewarded Wall Street greed. Mortgage bailouts rewarded folks that bought too much house and speculated that prices would always go up. Auto bailouts rewarded lousy business models. Imagine rewarding your kids with a new car after they crashed the old one because they were drunk driving, or continuing to give your kids an allowance after they spent their savings on pot. You would never do that, would you? So why are we rewarding arrogant, risky behavior now? Because the 'experts' told us too, that's why.
In essence, we are rewarding poor judgement time and again and funding it from the tax payers who continue to play by the rules. Rewarding poor behavior is never a good option, but financing it with long term debt is an even worse solution.
FYI, following simply supply and demand mentality, please recognize that the cash for clunkers is going to hurt the poor. It always hurts the poor, despite our elected officials best intent. If we remove clunkers from the car lots, the supply of used cars will go down. The only folks that cashed in on the program were folks who could afford to buy a new vehicle, right? Of course. The clunkers have to be scrapped, but the number of people demanding them (college students, workers making minimum wage, single parents, etc.) hasn't gone down. Voila! More demand than supplies equals higher prices. Nice.
Urge your congress person to STOP funding risky behavior with your money. Oh, and leave a comment or two if you don't mind. Writing this stuff keeps me up at night.
Taleb has spent most of his adult-life analyzing risk, learning to avoid risk and learning to profit from extraordinary circumstances. In finance they call these events "Black Swans;" the rare combination of a set of extraordinary events unfolding in the perfect order to create massive destruction to financial markets, models and financial plans, even by the most astute investor. For my friends in Western Pennsylvania, think of "Albino deer" or "Pittsburgh Pirates winning a pennant" and you'll understand how rare these occurences happen.
In short, Taleb also has been able to provide some evidence that we humans do a lousy job learning from the past, although we're more than capable of looking backwards after an event and criticizing the participants. If you have any doubt, simply listen to any call in sports show that takes calls from Monday morning quarterbacks analyzing what went wrong. They seldom offer a "how to make it better" solution, though.
Looking around and reading a recent letter addressed to President Obama from Taleb, I think it's time to recognize the Black Swan that might be in the room, cleverly disguised as indebtedness. In his letter, Taleb correctly points out that debt leaves little, if any, room for mistakes even in the best circumstances. Quoting the Roman proverb, "happy is he who owes nothing," I believe that the recent actions taken by all of our legislators have done nothing to stop the Black Swan from having offspring.
When you consider the fact that so much of our world is interdependent upon a million other fragments of society, the ability to identify potential hazards and trickle effects becomes nearly impossible to measure. (Measuring is what I like to do, by the way.) But how can one measure the impact of adding $9 trillion to the ever-expanding debt, which will exceed $20 trillion in ten years or less. How can adding debt to an already precarious position benefit anyone in the long run?
Taleb also correctly points out that many of the 'experts' are the same folks that created models that got us into the current (and most of the past) messes we are in today. Relying upon them to help solve the problem is merely a result of their own arrogance. Guess what arrogance leads to - more black swan events. Arrogance blinds us to our own predisposed prejudices, biases and flaws. Arrogance leads to group-think and herd mentality. Arrogance will lead us off of a cliff.
Cash for clunkers rewarded folks who bought vehicles that got lousy gas mileage. The bank bailouts rewarded Wall Street greed. Mortgage bailouts rewarded folks that bought too much house and speculated that prices would always go up. Auto bailouts rewarded lousy business models. Imagine rewarding your kids with a new car after they crashed the old one because they were drunk driving, or continuing to give your kids an allowance after they spent their savings on pot. You would never do that, would you? So why are we rewarding arrogant, risky behavior now? Because the 'experts' told us too, that's why.
In essence, we are rewarding poor judgement time and again and funding it from the tax payers who continue to play by the rules. Rewarding poor behavior is never a good option, but financing it with long term debt is an even worse solution.
FYI, following simply supply and demand mentality, please recognize that the cash for clunkers is going to hurt the poor. It always hurts the poor, despite our elected officials best intent. If we remove clunkers from the car lots, the supply of used cars will go down. The only folks that cashed in on the program were folks who could afford to buy a new vehicle, right? Of course. The clunkers have to be scrapped, but the number of people demanding them (college students, workers making minimum wage, single parents, etc.) hasn't gone down. Voila! More demand than supplies equals higher prices. Nice.
Urge your congress person to STOP funding risky behavior with your money. Oh, and leave a comment or two if you don't mind. Writing this stuff keeps me up at night.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
For the health of it
Ah it's that time of year again. Get the kids on the yellow bus, sit in traffic and think about stuff that bugs you.
Right now, one thing is bugging me (at least more than anything else) - healthcare reform.
Yes, it's controversial and yes, it's annoying but the reality is something is going to happen this year regarding healthcare and insurance whether you like it or not. Apparently to have an opinion differing from those in elected positions makes one 'Un-American' or an extremist.
However, I am going to propose something different with this blog today. I am going to suggest that people can actually have a civil conversation and debate about creative ways to help solve this problem. Here are the rules:
1. No berating an opposing view.
2. Your argument must be supported by facts
3. Please refrain from salty language (that's only allowed by me, the host. It's the only priviledge I get to enjoy.)
4. Have fun and no solution is off limits. (That's called brain storming - something politicians in DC are incapable of doing because it involves having a brain to storm with.)
So here's my idea (yes, my bullet-proof vest is zipped up and I have my big boy pants on.)
Require surgeons to post their performance, or track record, showing how many operations they've performed, the number of medical related issues that resulted from these operations and the years of experience their staff has. Basically a surgeon would be required to give a three year history on patients after the surgery. (Think of it like the label on the back of a breakfast cereal, only something that's easily written on an 8.5 x 11 piece of paper.)
Next, after reading the 'prospectus,' allow the patient the chance to either pay A) a price that includes the ability to sue the the doctor for malpractice or B) a price that does not allow the patient to sue for pain and suffering, but only lost wages.
In the auto industry they call this 'tort' or 'no tort.'
Now before you go berzerk on me, consider the following:
According to statistics from Stanford University, in 2005 about 20 million people underwent surgery with anesthesia. 12,000 of those patients died from a surgery that was unnecessary (i.e - plastic surgery, elective surgery, etc.) 106,000 died from medication errors associated with the surgery, 20,000 from hospital errors and 80,000 from infections resulting from the surgery (National Ledger, 8/21/2009.)
Let me do the math for you. That means that .1% of all surgeries resulted in death due to hospital errors during surgery. Other patients that died were a result of surgery that was not elective and required immediacy, such as heart attacks, cancer treatment, horrific accidents, etc. Let's call these things 'unpreventable' and outside of a hospitals ability to 'fix.'
Consider some of these facts, also from the National Ledger and confirmed from other sources such as National Institute on Health.
A study conducted by the AMA revealed that despite spending $3000 more per person on healthcare here in the US compared to Great Britain, twice as many American have diabetes and we also have a higher rate of heart attacks, strokes, lung disease and cancer than our friends across the pond.
What gives?
We're overmedicated folks. A forty-year study conducted by Dartmouth confirmed that as certain areas of the country spent more on healthcare, those folks died a faster pace than areas that spent less on health care. Is less really more?
The World Health Organization in 2008 found that the US has the worst track record compared to other industrialized nations when it came to preventable deaths due to treatable conditions such as bacterial infections and and complications from surgeries (both of which occur in hospitals, I might add.)
Next, cap the number/type of prescriptions one doctor can write. Do we really need auto-refills from an answering machine at the local pharmacy? Shouldn't SOMEONE monitor how the prescriptions are working PRIOR to reordering?
From personal experience, I literally stopped taking medication because I felt better and have eliminated my acid reflux problem. I still have 97 pills left from a 100 pill order, but the auto dialer at the pharmacy called to remind me that my prescription can be refilled and to place my order soon.
I am not an automobile needing an oil change.
Instead, through preventive maintenance NOT induced by drugs (you know, running, eating better and going to bed at a reasonable time) I helped my body heal. Old fashioned approach, but something that works quite well; not just for me but for all of us. We're not unique, folks, despite what people tell us.
So there it is.
We spend twice as much as Britain for care that is worse, so the solution before you and the rest of America is to do what? Spend more money?
Money is not the answer. In fact, money is what got us into this mess. Money for the drug companies, money for the lawyers, money for victims.
No. Remove the monetary element and begin letting people choose.
I anticipate many comments, discussions and ideas. That's what this is all about.
Right now, one thing is bugging me (at least more than anything else) - healthcare reform.
Yes, it's controversial and yes, it's annoying but the reality is something is going to happen this year regarding healthcare and insurance whether you like it or not. Apparently to have an opinion differing from those in elected positions makes one 'Un-American' or an extremist.
However, I am going to propose something different with this blog today. I am going to suggest that people can actually have a civil conversation and debate about creative ways to help solve this problem. Here are the rules:
1. No berating an opposing view.
2. Your argument must be supported by facts
3. Please refrain from salty language (that's only allowed by me, the host. It's the only priviledge I get to enjoy.)
4. Have fun and no solution is off limits. (That's called brain storming - something politicians in DC are incapable of doing because it involves having a brain to storm with.)
So here's my idea (yes, my bullet-proof vest is zipped up and I have my big boy pants on.)
Require surgeons to post their performance, or track record, showing how many operations they've performed, the number of medical related issues that resulted from these operations and the years of experience their staff has. Basically a surgeon would be required to give a three year history on patients after the surgery. (Think of it like the label on the back of a breakfast cereal, only something that's easily written on an 8.5 x 11 piece of paper.)
Next, after reading the 'prospectus,' allow the patient the chance to either pay A) a price that includes the ability to sue the the doctor for malpractice or B) a price that does not allow the patient to sue for pain and suffering, but only lost wages.
In the auto industry they call this 'tort' or 'no tort.'
Now before you go berzerk on me, consider the following:
According to statistics from Stanford University, in 2005 about 20 million people underwent surgery with anesthesia. 12,000 of those patients died from a surgery that was unnecessary (i.e - plastic surgery, elective surgery, etc.) 106,000 died from medication errors associated with the surgery, 20,000 from hospital errors and 80,000 from infections resulting from the surgery (National Ledger, 8/21/2009.)
Let me do the math for you. That means that .1% of all surgeries resulted in death due to hospital errors during surgery. Other patients that died were a result of surgery that was not elective and required immediacy, such as heart attacks, cancer treatment, horrific accidents, etc. Let's call these things 'unpreventable' and outside of a hospitals ability to 'fix.'
Consider some of these facts, also from the National Ledger and confirmed from other sources such as National Institute on Health.
A study conducted by the AMA revealed that despite spending $3000 more per person on healthcare here in the US compared to Great Britain, twice as many American have diabetes and we also have a higher rate of heart attacks, strokes, lung disease and cancer than our friends across the pond.
What gives?
We're overmedicated folks. A forty-year study conducted by Dartmouth confirmed that as certain areas of the country spent more on healthcare, those folks died a faster pace than areas that spent less on health care. Is less really more?
The World Health Organization in 2008 found that the US has the worst track record compared to other industrialized nations when it came to preventable deaths due to treatable conditions such as bacterial infections and and complications from surgeries (both of which occur in hospitals, I might add.)
Next, cap the number/type of prescriptions one doctor can write. Do we really need auto-refills from an answering machine at the local pharmacy? Shouldn't SOMEONE monitor how the prescriptions are working PRIOR to reordering?
From personal experience, I literally stopped taking medication because I felt better and have eliminated my acid reflux problem. I still have 97 pills left from a 100 pill order, but the auto dialer at the pharmacy called to remind me that my prescription can be refilled and to place my order soon.
I am not an automobile needing an oil change.
Instead, through preventive maintenance NOT induced by drugs (you know, running, eating better and going to bed at a reasonable time) I helped my body heal. Old fashioned approach, but something that works quite well; not just for me but for all of us. We're not unique, folks, despite what people tell us.
So there it is.
We spend twice as much as Britain for care that is worse, so the solution before you and the rest of America is to do what? Spend more money?
Money is not the answer. In fact, money is what got us into this mess. Money for the drug companies, money for the lawyers, money for victims.
No. Remove the monetary element and begin letting people choose.
I anticipate many comments, discussions and ideas. That's what this is all about.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Improving Education
If you don't mind I'm going to pull away from healthcare reform and the stock market this week and discuss something that is near and dear to my heart - education. As a proud member of the Mars Area School Board I am a huge proponent of educating our young adults; not just so that they can get a better job and create a higher standard of living, but also so they can appreciate the gifts our world and our neighbors have to offer. Call it "education for the sake of education," I guess.
With that said, much has been said about finding ways to improve our educational system. One such proposal involves merit pay for teachers. On the surface this appears to be a great idea, and I'd challenge anyone to oppose methods for improving student performance.
However, when you look behind the numbers, it's very important to discover what the carrot tied to the stick is before implementing policies that reward teachers for improvements by their students. Additionally, it's important to evaluate administrators and their effectiveness.
Current proposals for merit pay seem to focus on improving test scores, which seems like a very real indicator of whether teaching methods are working and students are improving. After all, improved exit exams are clearly a sign that teachers are doing a better job teaching the things we deem to be important, right?
Not so fast.
Many economists have begun to analyze merit pay based upon improved scores and are discovering that teaching effectiveness actually decreases when financial incentive is tied to standardized tests such as the ones being proposed by congress. In fact, while scores certainly improve, student performance in areas goes down.
How can this be?
In order to analyze this, one needs to look behind the numbers and look at motivators. What motivates someone to teach?
First and foremost, it's pretty safe to assume that one enters the teaching profession to impact others first and make money second. In fact, the same holds true for police officers, social workers, nurses and healthcare workers and other community related type of professions. Motivators for this group would be things that impact the world socially first. Economists call these "social motivators (we're not much for creativity when it comes to naming things. Sorry.)
As a result, improving big societal topics like reducing childhood obesity, reducing violent crimes, reducing illiteracy, etc. are things that these groups would find quite endearing and they'd be happy to be a part of the solution. The evaluation process is cumbersome, time-consuming and difficult to measure; particularly over a short period.
However, when the "carrot" becomes something easily measurable, such as improved test scores, increased attendance or reduced drop out rates, the workers can and do modify their behavior so that they achieve the desired results.
Think about it for a minute. If you were given the opportunity to earn a 10% bonus based upon your product (children) improving their test scores, would you modify your teaching plans to include everything on the test? Absolutely. However, you might be overlooking true learning that occurs day to day; what everyone, including our President, is calling 'teachable moments.' Should we sacrifice teachable moments for the sake of a 1%, 2% or 5% improvement in test scores?
Study after study is beginning to reveal that merit pay for teachers might not be a fundamentally sound idea for this very reason. Imagine a police officer that worked on commission, earning $10 for every speeding ticket he or she generated. How about a firefighter that earned a commission on every fire they put out? (Would this lead to an increase in fires as well?) Maybe a doctor should earn commission on the number of surgeries he or she performs (aren't we going down this road already? How's that working out?)
Additionally, studies are showing that the amount of money spent per pupil does not actually equate to improved student scores. This flies in the face of everything we're being told by legislators, yet we continue to believe that spending more money per pupil is the only solution. After all, money fixes everything here in the US. In fact, we spend more per pupil in the US than any other country in the Western Hemisphere. The return our investment is less than stellar if measured in economic terms.
Perhaps an overhaul of our education system is needed. Let's start with reptition. How can we expect students to learn and retain anything when they only need to go 1/2 of a year?
No. There needs to be merit based performance incentives, but the carrot needs to be something other than test scores. It needs to directly tied to things that the instructor can control, such as his or her daily attendance, improving communications with parents or guardians (both positive and negative communications) and representing the employer (in this case the school district) in a favorable light through community involvement, fundraisers, etc. - things that occur outside of normal school hours so that they can continue to do what they do best, which is teach.
Perhaps congress and the current administration could dangle a carrot tied to going year-round or districts that offer longer school days. Imagine how much your personal performance at work would improve if you were required to work 45 hours per week. Currently students in Pennsylvania high schools have to have 5.5 hours per day, five days per week, of instruction time. That's 27.5 hours per week, 180 days per year. If you want to stretch this over the entire year, it would be the equivalent of working a part-time job 13 hours per week, or a day and a half per week, all year. You can't learn anything of substance in this timeframe.
And we want to tie teachers down with more standardized tests? It's counter-intuitive, but it tugs at our emotional reasoning.
This is called Behavioral Economics, by the way.
I know that my ideas are not popular right now, and most likely, society is going to put merit pay in place based upon test scores. Additionally, I don't see any politician suggesting full-time, 8 hours per day for students aged 12 and older. Don't look for it anytime soon, either.
Let me be one of many others to verbally come out and say this is a bad idea and will ultimately lead us to a decrease in efficiency as a society. If you have any doubts, look at the runway of failed education reforms like No Child Left Behind, Standardized Exit exams, etc.
We're not solving the bigger problems which is teaching students to embrace learning for learning's sake. That's too hard.
With that said, much has been said about finding ways to improve our educational system. One such proposal involves merit pay for teachers. On the surface this appears to be a great idea, and I'd challenge anyone to oppose methods for improving student performance.
However, when you look behind the numbers, it's very important to discover what the carrot tied to the stick is before implementing policies that reward teachers for improvements by their students. Additionally, it's important to evaluate administrators and their effectiveness.
Current proposals for merit pay seem to focus on improving test scores, which seems like a very real indicator of whether teaching methods are working and students are improving. After all, improved exit exams are clearly a sign that teachers are doing a better job teaching the things we deem to be important, right?
Not so fast.
Many economists have begun to analyze merit pay based upon improved scores and are discovering that teaching effectiveness actually decreases when financial incentive is tied to standardized tests such as the ones being proposed by congress. In fact, while scores certainly improve, student performance in areas goes down.
How can this be?
In order to analyze this, one needs to look behind the numbers and look at motivators. What motivates someone to teach?
First and foremost, it's pretty safe to assume that one enters the teaching profession to impact others first and make money second. In fact, the same holds true for police officers, social workers, nurses and healthcare workers and other community related type of professions. Motivators for this group would be things that impact the world socially first. Economists call these "social motivators (we're not much for creativity when it comes to naming things. Sorry.)
As a result, improving big societal topics like reducing childhood obesity, reducing violent crimes, reducing illiteracy, etc. are things that these groups would find quite endearing and they'd be happy to be a part of the solution. The evaluation process is cumbersome, time-consuming and difficult to measure; particularly over a short period.
However, when the "carrot" becomes something easily measurable, such as improved test scores, increased attendance or reduced drop out rates, the workers can and do modify their behavior so that they achieve the desired results.
Think about it for a minute. If you were given the opportunity to earn a 10% bonus based upon your product (children) improving their test scores, would you modify your teaching plans to include everything on the test? Absolutely. However, you might be overlooking true learning that occurs day to day; what everyone, including our President, is calling 'teachable moments.' Should we sacrifice teachable moments for the sake of a 1%, 2% or 5% improvement in test scores?
Study after study is beginning to reveal that merit pay for teachers might not be a fundamentally sound idea for this very reason. Imagine a police officer that worked on commission, earning $10 for every speeding ticket he or she generated. How about a firefighter that earned a commission on every fire they put out? (Would this lead to an increase in fires as well?) Maybe a doctor should earn commission on the number of surgeries he or she performs (aren't we going down this road already? How's that working out?)
Additionally, studies are showing that the amount of money spent per pupil does not actually equate to improved student scores. This flies in the face of everything we're being told by legislators, yet we continue to believe that spending more money per pupil is the only solution. After all, money fixes everything here in the US. In fact, we spend more per pupil in the US than any other country in the Western Hemisphere. The return our investment is less than stellar if measured in economic terms.
Perhaps an overhaul of our education system is needed. Let's start with reptition. How can we expect students to learn and retain anything when they only need to go 1/2 of a year?
No. There needs to be merit based performance incentives, but the carrot needs to be something other than test scores. It needs to directly tied to things that the instructor can control, such as his or her daily attendance, improving communications with parents or guardians (both positive and negative communications) and representing the employer (in this case the school district) in a favorable light through community involvement, fundraisers, etc. - things that occur outside of normal school hours so that they can continue to do what they do best, which is teach.
Perhaps congress and the current administration could dangle a carrot tied to going year-round or districts that offer longer school days. Imagine how much your personal performance at work would improve if you were required to work 45 hours per week. Currently students in Pennsylvania high schools have to have 5.5 hours per day, five days per week, of instruction time. That's 27.5 hours per week, 180 days per year. If you want to stretch this over the entire year, it would be the equivalent of working a part-time job 13 hours per week, or a day and a half per week, all year. You can't learn anything of substance in this timeframe.
And we want to tie teachers down with more standardized tests? It's counter-intuitive, but it tugs at our emotional reasoning.
This is called Behavioral Economics, by the way.
I know that my ideas are not popular right now, and most likely, society is going to put merit pay in place based upon test scores. Additionally, I don't see any politician suggesting full-time, 8 hours per day for students aged 12 and older. Don't look for it anytime soon, either.
Let me be one of many others to verbally come out and say this is a bad idea and will ultimately lead us to a decrease in efficiency as a society. If you have any doubts, look at the runway of failed education reforms like No Child Left Behind, Standardized Exit exams, etc.
We're not solving the bigger problems which is teaching students to embrace learning for learning's sake. That's too hard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
