Goedemorgen, here is what I found interesting this AM:

• Too Bullish for Comfort (Barron’s)
Sheila Bair: Is BlackRock too big to fail? (Fortune)
• Ultra-Low Interest Rates: Who Wins? Who Loses? (Conversable Economist)
• Why the Dollar Dominates, and Why That’s Not All Good (WSJ) see also Stiglitz: An Agenda to Save the Euro (Project Syndicate)
REITS, Brokers & Conflicts: The ghost of private placements past (Investment News)
• Home Buyers Are Scarce, So Renters Take Their Place (NY Times)
• How to Burst the “Filter Bubble” that Protects Us from Opposing Views (MIT Technology Review)
NSFW!: The Porn Industry Goes Social With PinSex (Fast Company)
• Apple, China Mobile Sign Deal to Offer iPhone (stratēchery)
• 5 New Rules of the Office Holiday Party (Fox Business)

What are you reading?


Forward Price / Earnings Ratios By Sector

Source: The Reformed Broker

Category: Financial Press

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

14 Responses to “10 Thursday Reads”

  1. theexpertisin says:

    Ultra-low interest rates are, in effect, a tax on retirees and the saving class. This tactic, a class warfare-like act, coldly calculates that senior citizens and conservative savers are not going to revolt in large enough numbers to impact election results. They will out of necessity, willingly and naively speculate on more risky assets to buy life’s essentials. There are more votes to be gained catering to the takers and spendthrifts of society with easy money funded by squashed interest rates and unlimited printing of currency.

    I wish the author did not gloss over this problem. It hits home to me, living in a large retirement area and seeing first hand the results of this “tax”. It will end badly for many folks who played by the rules during their entire working lives, trusting government to do the right thing.

    • Retirees yes.

      Savers less so, as many of them get the benefits of lower cost capital

    • willid3 says:

      if low interest rates were a problem today, why not a decade ago too? and unless I miss my guess, that low interest rates as paid by banks, is much older (I can recall getting 2% interest, in the 1990s). and if we are talking bonds, how would you get higher rates, if business isnt interested in borrowing because the cost of it is too high? and if individuals (who drive the rates offered by banks, etc) see higher rates, wont they cut back their borrowing, leading to fewer borrowers, paying higher individual rate. and maybe that would be a really large reduction in demand for bonds and loans. and if its just banks that we are concerned about, you are probably not going to see any time this decade (no matter what the fed rate is) higher interest on savings, because their business model has changed, thats not how they make their money any more. they make much more in fees than any thing else

    • Anonymous Jones says:

      In a sense, I agree that it operates as a tax.

      Don’t we have lots of things that operate as taxes, both on their face or in practice?

      I’m sorry, but just calling something a tax doesn’t make it a bad thing. Have I missed something? We all pay some kind of taxes, directly or indirectly. Sales taxes, gas taxes, sin taxes, property taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes. What is it about this ‘tax’ that’s wrong or poorly targeted?

      I doubt that anyone subject to a tax wouldn’t rather it fall on everyone else rather than on him or her. That’s not really a principled argument, though. Or do you still not see that?

      • theexpertisin says:

        Anonymous Jones

        You point is taken, but…

        Try making a convincing argument to retirees who have planned judiciously for retirement, willing as previous generations to lend government money at a reasonable interest rate, with protection of principle, to buy essentials and the occasional trip to see their grandchildren. Many are scared to death of the stock market as they have a comparatively short lifespan to recoup from a market downdraft.

        Walk in their shoes.

    • Biffah Bacon says:

      It’s not a tax unless it is a legislated tax. In this case it is just poor investment strategy and hubris. Economics and capitalism are amoral and for some pursuit of wealth must not be encumbered by moral or legal constraints (inefficiency).

      There is no guarantee of permanent interest rates sufficient to support the elderly based on their savings; I suggest that this premise is part of a morality construction that has been repeatedly disproven by data but persists due to faith in the Protestant ethic of saving and suffering.

      In your missive below there is a similar notion that by not raising interest rates the government is not “doing the right thing” but here I would suggest that decisions were and are being made that take into consideration these folks’ concerns but find them less important than pursuing the current program. People have to keep paddling even if the water is muddy and full of crocodiles-some of whom want to seize the safety nets that support these retirees.

  2. hue says:

    How to Make Money off of Internet Romance (The Atlantic)

    Stolen Facebook & Yahoo Passwords Dumped Online (the beeb)

    A Growing Obsession with Viral Content Exposes Digital Media Weakness (Gigaom)

  3. RW says:

    The economy normally performs better when the POTUS is a Democrat — a fact that is contentiously debated as you might expect — but this is the first attempt I’ve seen that genuinely focuses on what the evidence is trying to say rather than beginning with a desired conclusion.

    Presidents and the Economy: A Forensic Investigation

    ABSTRACT: The U.S. economy has performed better when the President of the United States is a Democrat rather than a Republican, almost regardless of how one measures performance. For many measures, including real GDP growth (on which we concentrate), the performance gap is both large and statistically significant, despite the fact that postwar history includes only 16 presidential terms. This paper asks why. We find that the answer is not found in technical time series matters (such as differential trends or mean reversion), nor in systematically more expansionary monetary or fiscal policy under Democrats. Rather, it appears that the Democratic edge stems mainly from more benign oil shocks, superior TFP performance, and more optimistic consumer expectations about the near-term future. Many other potential explanations are examined, but they fail to explain the partisan growth gap.

    NB: Matt Yglesias suggests that the authors linked above are actually treading more softly than the evidence warrants and their conclusion suffers from the fallacy of composition; i.e., even if it were true that each individual factor — benign oil shock, superior TFP performance, better consumer confidence — could plausibly be explained as coincidence (AKA due to luck) that does not mean the whole taken together is coincidental.

  4. willid3 says:

    hm. still doing the same old thing?


    you would think financiers would learn wouldnt you?

  5. willid3 says:

    how Congressional capture was dont? which lead to regulative capture?