I first met John McCain at a primary campaign rally in New Jersey in 2000. A photograph of him and my wife memorializing that event looks down at me as I write this blog. I later met him two more times in more private surroundings. We talked about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and the growing problem of Iran. He candidly admitted that he had no real solution for the Iran of a decade ago. I spoke on his behalf at a Baruch College forum during his 2008 presidential campaign.
In those conversations he was authentic. Unlike other politicians I have known, what you saw on television is what I witnessed in person. Even in a very serious conversation his sense of humor came through and above all else I knew I was in the presence of an American patriot. At a time when America is being threatened from within and without his counsel and leadership will be sorely missed.
There are far more eloquent things being written about John McCain today. I only knew him causally and for that I will be eternally grateful. His family has our prayers.
Sunday, August 26, 2018
Friday, August 24, 2018
My Amazon Review of Laurence M. Ball's "The Fed and Lehman Brothers: Setting the Record Straight on a Financial Disaster"
Killing the Chicken to Scare the Monkey
Johns Hopkins economics professor
Laurence Ball has written an extraordinarily well-researched book on the demise
of Lehman Brothers. At the very least he seriously questions the official
response to the Lehman bankruptcy which states that Lehman was insolvent and
lacked adequate collateral on September 15, 2008 and at maximum he completely
debunks the Fed and the Treasury. Although I am not in the complete debunking
camp, Ball has certainly changed my views on the subject.
Specifically Ball calculates that Lehman
was borderline solvent at the time of the bankruptcy filing. In my own view
based on Ball’s numbers I would have them more in the insolvent category because
of the way Ball values Lehman’s Level 2 assets. Be that as it may, Ball is convincing
when he argues that Lehman had sufficient collateral for a loan under the Primary
Dealer Credit Facility (PDCF) at the time of the filing and it certainly had
the collateral when the requirements were eased two days later. Ball cogently
argues that Maiden Lane rescue of Bear Stearns and the subsequent AIG rescue
were far more risky for the Fed than a short-term loan to Lehman would have
been.
Then why didn’t the Fed at least
temporarily bail out Lehman. To Ball it was pure politics with Treasury
Secretary Hank Paulson leading the charge against any hint of a bailout. Put simply a Lehman bailout was viewed as politically
toxic. And in fact, the consequences of letting Lehman go allowed the Congress
to go forward with TARP and for the Fed to open the floodgate of cash under
Section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act. A year later New York Times columnist
wrote “Lehman Had to Die, So Global Finance Could Live” (September 11, 2009). Put
bluntly the chicken had to die.
Ball argues that if the Fed intervened
and kept Lehman alive, at least temporarily, the deluge that followed would
have been averted. Here I respectfully disagree. AIG was already a goner and
the markets would have immediately turned their attention to the severe
problems at Morgan Stanley and Citigroup. Clearly stated, there were too many
toxic assets awash in the system. All bailing out Lehman would have done would
have been to delay the inevitable, which in my mind would have been far worse.
Ball’s encyclopedic sources include all
of Lehman’s SEC filings, the Valukas report, testimony before the Financial
Crisis Inquiry Commission, the books by Bernanke, Paulson and Geithner and Andrew
Ross Sorkin’s “Too Big To Fail.” One failing is that he should have talked to
Lehman’s CEO Dick Fuld. In my view Fuld was so full of himself that he refused
to see the writing on the wall and held out for too high of a price in his
failed attempt secure financing for Lehman in 2008. Further exacerbating the
situation is that Fuld was hardly the most agreeable person around and likely
rubbed his regulators and the other major firms the wrong way. In the interest
of full disclosure I was a managing director at Lehman from 2000 – 2005.
Ball’s book is very detailed and the
writing leaves out the high drama of the situation making it very text bookie
and slow going. Nevertheless the facts speak for themselves.
The full Amazon URL appears at: https://www.amazon.com/review/R61722ZNJ3XFH/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv
Wednesday, August 22, 2018
My Amazon Review of Adam Tooze's "Crashed: How a Decade of Financial Crises Changes the World"
The World in Crisis
Columbia history professor Adam Tooze,
an authority on the inter-war years, has offered up an authoritative history of
the financial crises and their aftermath that have beset the world since 2008.
He integrates economics, the plumbing of the interbank financial system and the
politics of the major players in how and why the financial crisis of 2008
developed and the course of the very uneven recovery that followed. I must note
that Tooze has some very clear biases in that he views the history through a
social democratic prism and is very critical of the congressional Republican
caucus and the go slow policies of the European Central Bank under Trichet. To
him the banks got bailed out while millions of people suffered as collateral
damage from a crisis that was largely made by the financial system. His view
may very well be correct, but many readers might differ. Simply put, to save
the economy policy makers had to stop the bleeding.
He starts off with the hot topic of
2005; the need for fiscal consolidation in the United States. Aside from a few
dissidents, most economists saw the need for the U.S. to close its fiscal
deficit and did not see the structural crisis that was developing underneath
them. Although he does mention Hyman Minsky a few times in the book, he leaves
out Minsky’s most important insight that “stability leads to instability” as
market participants are lulled into a false sense of security. It therefore was
against the backdrop of the “great moderation” that the crisis began. And it was the seemingly calm environment that
lulled all too many regulators to sleep.
The underbelly of the financial system
was and still is in many respects is the wholesale funding system where too
many banks are largely funded in repo and commercial paper markets. This
mismatch was exacerbated by the use of asset-backed commercial paper to fund
long term mortgage securities. It was problems in that market that triggered
the crisis in August 2007.
The crisis explodes when Lehman Brothers
files for bankruptcy in September 2008. In Tooze’s view the decision to let
Lehman fail was political, not economic. After that the gates of hell are
opened causing the Bush Administration and the Federal Reserve to ask for $750
billion dollar TARP bailout of the major banks. It was in the Congressional fight
over this appropriation where Tooze believes the split in the Republican Party
between the business conservative and social populist wing hardens. We are
living with that through this day. The TARP program passes with Democratic
votes. Tooze also notes that there was great continuity between the Bush and
early Obama policies with respect to the banks and auto bailout. Recall that in
late 2008 and early 2009 nationalization of the banks was on the table. Tooze
also correctly notes that the major beneficiary of the TARP program was
Citicorp, the most exposed U.S. bank to the wholesale funding system.
Concurrent with TARP the Bernanke Fed
embarks on its first quantitative easing program where it buys up not only
treasuries, but mortgage backed securities as well. It was with the latter Europe’s
banks were bailed out. Half of the first QE went to bail out Europe’s troubled banks.
When combined the dollar swap lines with QE, Europe’s central banks essentially
became branches of the Fed. Now here is a problem. Where in the Federal Reserve
Act does it say that the Fed is the central bank to the world? To some it maybe
a stretch.
Tooze applauds Obama’s stimulus policy
but rightly says it was too small. There should have been more infrastructure
in it. To my view there could have been more infrastructure if only Obama was
willing to deal with the Republicans by offering to waive environmental reviews
and prevailing wage rules. He never tried for fear of offending his labor and
environmental constituencies. Tooze also gives great credit to China with it
all out monetary and fiscal policies. That triggered a revival in the energy
and natural resource economies of Australia and Brazil thereby helping global
recovery.
He then turns to the slow responses in
Europe and the political wrangling over the tragedy that was to befall Greece.
It came down to the power of Angela Merkel and her unwillingness to have the
frugal German taxpayer subsidize the profligate Greeks. As they say “all politics
is local”. The logjam in Europe doesn’t really break until Mario Draghi makes an
off-the-cuff remark at a London speech in July 2012 by saying the ECB will do “whatever
it takes” to engender European recovery.
As a byproduct of bailing out the banks and failing to directly
help the average citizen a rash of populism, mostly of the rightwing variety,
breaks out all over leading to Brexit,
Orban in Hungary, a stronger rightwing in Germany and, of course, Donald Trump.
But to me it wasn’t only banking policy that created this. The huge surge in
immigration into Europe has a lot more to do with it. Tooze under-rates this
factor. He also under-rates the risk of having a monetary policy that is too
easy and too long. The same type of Minsky risk discussed earlier is now
present in the global economy: witness Turkey, for example. Thus it is too
early to tell whether or not the all-out monetary policy of the past decade
will be judged a success from the vantage point of 2030.
Adam Tooze has written an important book
and I view it as must read for a serious lay reader to get a better
understanding of the economic and political policies of the past decade.
The full Amazon URL appears at: https://www.amazon.com/review/R3N14CMQU8F3OF/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv
Tuesday, August 7, 2018
My Amazon Review of Ronen Bergman's "Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel's Targeted Assassinations"
Clausewitzian Realism in Service of the
State
Israeli journalist Ronen Bergman has written
a well-researched and readable book on Israel’s secret war of targeted
assassinations against its most feared enemies ranging from Iran to Hamas to
Hezbollah. In fact as I write this review there is a front page New York Times
story (8/7/18) on the assassination of a Syrian rocket scientist on the streets
of Damascus that was attributed to the Mossad which remains pound for pound the
best foreign security agency in the world. He starts in the pre-state era and
goes through 2015 and covers the three main organs of state security: Mossad
(external), Shin Bet (internal) and AMAN (military). He covers their great
successes and their failures. Unfortunately he is way too much of a critic for
my taste.
Bergman begins his book by quoting from
Talmud: “If someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him first.” That in a
nutshell is the major lesson of his book because a small state surrounded by
enemies has to act preemptively if it is to survive. The state has to be a
Clausewitzian realist who understands to paraphrase Clausewitz “assassination
is the continuation of politics by other means.”
Perhaps the clearest example of realism
is when the Mossad hires former Waffen-SS Lieutenant Colonel and Hitler
favorite Otto Skorzeny to disrupt an Egyptian missile program in the early
1960s. At that time Nasser recruited World War II German rocket scientists to
develop missiles to attack Israel. The operation was a success. Just think about
this, Israel hiring a Nazi leader to defeat its current Egyptian enemy.
There are many stories like this with
hits taking place in Europe, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. Each and every one
had to be personally approved by the prime minister. Of course thing often went
awry, most notably during the 1982 Lebanon War. It is a high risk business
where the lives of the agents are at great risk and the mission can fail if
civilians are killed. However, unlike their opponents, the Israeli’s agonized
over the potential for collateral damage and actually called off operations
because of undue risk to non-targets.
Bergman’s main source for more recent
events appears to be former Mossad head Meir Dagan who ran the operation from
2003-2012. Dagan died in 2015 and was a harsh critic of Netanyahu, especially
with respect to his Iran policy. Bergman too dislikes Netanyahu but he more
kind to Sharon and Begin. I did not like Bergman using his pejorative term
“right wing” to describe the Likud faction. I would have used center-right.
After all he never called the Labor Party “left wing.”
Despite my criticisms Bergman has
written a terrific book. There is much to learn about Israeli tradecraft and
how their decision making process worked. And when one reads about operational
failures, the critic has to sit in the shoes of the decision makers at the time
the decision was made. In the spy business it is easy to be a Monday morning
quarterback. Bergman ends his book by noting that we can’t confuse tactical
success with strategic success. Israel’s strategic dilemma hasn’t much changed
since the aftermath of the 1967 war. It has yet to reach a long term settlement
with the Palestinians and still faces a very hostile Iran.
For the full Amazon URL see: https://www.amazon.com/review/R1PFY89UKBK8SG/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)