Regulation

 

Amazing lead paragraph by Kara Scannell and Fawn Johnson at the WSJ. It’s in an article titled, “Schapiro: Web of Rules Aided Fall.”

Regulators haven’t found evidence of a single cause for the May 6 stock-market plunge, but the lack of unified rules among stock exchanges played a role, Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Mary Schapiro said Tuesday.

There is not a single sentence in the entire article to explain how a “lack of unified rules among stock exchanges” could have played a role. I suppose mere reporters don’t get to ask questions at a congressional hearing, but surely they should have reported on how the congressional committee members let that comment go by without a word of explanation. Or perhaps there was an explanation, in which case Scannel and Johnson should have told us about it.

Why make a big deal out of this? Well, I am skeptical that a lack of unified rules could have caused a lack of stability. It’s just not the way large, complex systems usually work. Usually there is stability in diversity, not in uniformity.

I tend to think of the parallels between economic systems and biological ecosystems. Note how the headline used the word “web.” Webs are usually good for stability. If this is a rare exception, it would be worth knowing about it.

 

If you suffer from The Urge to Regulate, don’t watch the above video of San Francisco’s Market Street, taken a few days before the earthquake in 1906. Watch the one below, instead, taken in 2005. It will be easier on you. (If you suffer from the opposite malady, think about the unregulated buildings that were damaged in the earthquake.)

 

We could call it the O.J. Senate.    Just as O.J. Simpson combed the Florida golfcourses looking for the real killer of Nicole Brown Simpson, Carl Levin has hauled Goldman Sachs into a Senate hearing room so he can look for the real villains in the financial meltdown.   (His office can’t be that far away from Chris Dodd’s and Barney Frank’s, can it?)

 

President Obama says he will veto any financial reform bill that doesn’t bring the derivatives market under control. If he really meant that, he would have vetoed the recent health bill.

Derivatives are a problem in that they obscure what it is a purchaser owns. It’s hard to know how to value them, which makes it difficult for buyer, seller, and regulator. They create opportunities for market distortions.

The same is true of the health care bill. Supposedly there is some pie in the sky that’s going to repay the investment of higher taxes that we’ll be making. But it’s all so vague — it’s hard to connect value and payments in any accountable way. The health care plan should have been subject to the same scrutiny and controls (and perhaps prohibitions) that are needed in the securities market.

 

It wasn’t just the Community Reinvestment Act that got us into this mess.

The problem wasn’t merely that HUD under Mr. Cuomo was raising the volume of risky loans for which taxpayers were guaranteeing. HUD was also encouraging a dangerous decline in underwriting standards at these government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs). Says former Fannie Mae chief credit officer Edward Pinto, “HUD commissioned much research aimed at forcing the adoption of more flexible lending standards by the GSEs.”

WSJ article, “Prosecutor, Charge Thyself : Andrew Cuomo has more to answer for than does Bank of America.”

 

This is corruption. No possible good can come from a meeting between the chief regulator and the CEO of one of the companies being regulated. This is not how regulation is supposed to work. This is just an opportunity for political pressure and political concessions.

Either the cars have defects or they don’t. A meeting behind closed doors between the CEO of Toyota and a representative of Public Motors is not going to establish any facts. It’s not going to make cars any safer. The regulatory process needs to be transparent and objective, and not dependent on two guys talking nice to each other or tough to each other.

Does a public prosecutor want to meet one on one with the mafia godfather before deciding whether or not to prosecute? Does a public prosecutor want to meet one on one with the local representative of Angels of Mercy before deciding whether or not to prosecute There are proper ways of conducting interrogations. What LaHood is doing is not one of them.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said Wednesday his agency is widening its probe of sudden acceleration complaints in Toyota Motor Corp. vehicles to look at the possibility of electromagnetic interference with electronic throttle systems, and said he wants to talk directly with company Chief Executive Akio Toyoda.

URL here.

What if a company like Toyota actually develops a safety problem with its cars someday, and somebody gets killed? The blood will be on the hands of the Obama administration. The government is supposed to be an honest regulator and is supposed to provide information on such things to the public, and to keep unsafe cars to go uncorrected. But now that it has a huge conflict of interest, there is no basis for the public to believe anything it says or does in the way of safety regulation. We still have the usual workings of the market to help us, but we’re deprived of a source of information we used to have. Obama took it away when he instituted the public automotive option.

What LaHood is doing is tearing down any residual shreds of confidence we may still have had that the government could be an honest regulator in spite of its huge conflict of interest.

 

“Building codes disenfranchise young people. Give me a break.”

That’s what one of Paul Jacob’s commenters replied in response to his article, “Who Killed Disco.” The guy didn’t mean to, but he provided a nifty five-word summary of an all-too-real phenomenon.

My own comment after reading some of the other comments:

It seems there are some people for whom is is not so important that people are safe, but for whom it is very important that we have government regulations that require safety. It’s an interesting psychological phenomenon.

 

greywolf3

In the fall of 1964 the movie version of Nikita Khrushchev calls General Kuraev to ask (according to the English subtitles) “Then why your colleague killed himself?”

The answer: “If you mean Colonel Glushko, he had some troubles with his family life.”

This conversation took place because Khrushchev had been tipped off about vague things going on behind his back. Glushko had learned about them in greater detail, but he was killed by Khrushchev’s enemies before he could report to those who needed to be warned. To Khrushchev, the murder is described as a suicide due to family troubles. Yeah, right.

Here’s another one: “Congressman Blow is resigning so he can spend more time with his family.” Translation: Congressman Blow got caught and is leaving before the voters throw him out.

Another: “Wally is leaving the company to pursue other business opportunities.” Translation: Wally would be getting fired if he didn’t.

Yet another: “The management of the company is being re-organized. Joe will be in charge of special projects.” Translation: Joe will be leaving the company soon, but is being given time to polish his resume and look for other work.

I think we can also add the following one to the list. “Toyota is recalling cars due to sticking accelerator pedals.” Translation: Toyota has enemies in high places in the current regulatory regime.

Can anyone recall when carmakers weren’t doing recalls or getting sued over sticky accelerator pedals? For some strange reason, after decades of improvements to car safety, after advances in materials and production techniques, cars somehow continue to be made with sticky accelerator pedals and linkages. Curious, isn’t it, that there is no lasting solution for a simple mechanical problem?

Maybe Toyota’s quality really is slipping, but the latest news would be a little more credible if it wasn’t something as trite as sticky accelerator pedals. It’s almost as if the media/government are winking at us as they say it. And now, instead of simply fixing the problem, Toyota is going into public apology mode reminiscent of the Soviet show trials of the 1930s.

Respected automotive reporter Paul Ingrassia says Audi was accused in the mid 1980s of having a similar problem. “But the issue, fed by media hysteria, turned out to be bogus.” But Ingrassia says this time the problem “appears to be the real thing.” I’m glad he said “appears to be.”

Maybe Toyota really has a problem. We simply have no way of knowing at this point. One thing we do know, though, is that a successful Toyota is a threat to its government-run competitors at General Motors. When the chief regulator also has a political and financial interest in promoting one of Toyota’s competitors, it’s best to reserve judgment.

We need to replace our old Toyota Corolla soon. We used to buy Fords, but never had so few repair problems as we’ve had with our Corolla. It sounds like Ford is on a comeback, which is good, but we don’t want a new car. We want a pre-2009 model, so as to get one before Toyota started making the cars larger and with lower gas mileage. We’ve put it off because the stupid cash-for-clunkers program took most of them out of the used car lots. But maybe it will soon be a good time to buy. With all of the current media hysteria, maybe there will be some good deals.

 

Remember how people said the financial crisis meant we needed more regulation? Recently there have been reports like this one in the WSJ.

There also has been in-fighting among different bank regulators, with each debating the health of giant financial institutions, say people familiar with the matter.

Sounds like banks and other businesses had better spend less time trying to figure out what their customers want, and more time trying to figure out what regulators want.

 

In olden times, if you got too far in debt to pay back your loan, you would get thrown in prison and would not be let out until you paid the uttermost farthing. Of course, it was difficult to generate enough income to come up with those farthings while you were in prison.

To some people this system seemed counterproductive if not unjust. It motivated them to come up with a better method, such as bankruptcy court.

But now the Obama administration is taking us back to the older ways.

According to Monday’s WSJ, Citigroup and Wells Fargo would like to get out of the Trouble Asset Relief Program. They have money to pay back the taxpayer money that had been loaned to them. But the government likes having those companies in its debt. In this case the uttermost farthing consists of about $20 billion more than they even owed. The government won’t let them pay back the money unless they also raise $20 billion in common stock. Of course, it’s hard to raise that kind of money while you’re in prison. Who wants to invest in Citigroup and Wells Fargo when they’re operating under the government’s thumb? So, as the article says, “Disagreements over capital-raising mean Citigroup is unlikely to repay its TARP investment in the foreseeable future….”

© 2011 The Reticulator Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha
Easy AdSense by Unreal
Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE