Good News: Even When They're Given Inside Information, Politicians Are Hapless Traders

Frustrated that politicians can trade on inside information and you can't? Take heart: they're so hapless, they can't make money from it.

Read the full post in Forbes

Sphere: Related Content

I Am The Zero Percent

I don't fit with either political party.  No one speaks for me. So here's my manifesto. What's yours?

Read the full post on Forbes

Sphere: Related Content

Will The Bernanke Haters Please Shut Up?

Nobody has a more thankless job than Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke. His critics have no clue how bad shape we'd be in if he'd sat on his hands as they wish.

Read the full post here on Forbes.

Sphere: Related Content

China's Complex Inflation Problem

By Eric Jackson, Senior Contributor02/24/11 - 06:00 AM EST

NEW YORK (TheStreet) -- The Chinese government and a chorus of US critics have criticizedFederal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke's "quantitative easing" (QE2) program since its announcement last November as a direct cause of white-hot commodity inflation.

According to this view, Bernanke unfairly unleashed inflationary forces which China and other countries have to grapple with.

Bernanke has correctly pointed out that China and others could very quickly lessen the effect of U.S. policy by de-pegging their currencies, like the yuan, to the U.S. dollar.

Hedge fund manager Paul Tudor Jones went so far recently in an investor letter as stating the U.S. should force a de-pegging, as it was adding an extra 4% to the U.S. unemployment rate.

In the letter, Tudor Jones discussed the downside to China of their "unsustainable" policy: "one way or the other, the real U.S. and Chinese exchange rate will find equilibrium -- either through nominal movement or through relative inflation rates." He would say we're seeing the latter today.

While I agree that de-pegging the yuan from the dollar would be the single most effective move the Chinese government could make to curb inflation in China, they are unlikely to do so. Even if they did, more action would be needed to quell it.

Over the last 10 years, especially since the 2008 crash, the Chinese government has taken several actions which, although correct at the time, have fanned the price of commodities more so than QE2. Such moves include:

• The 2008 stimulus package that pumped $584 billion into the Chinese economy. In 2010, China's M2 money supply rose 19.7% over the prior year. With money supply now at 73 trillion yuan, it is larger than China's GDP of 67.5 trillion . By comparison, the U.S. M2 as a percentage of GDP is close to 0.6. That will create some inflation.
• For many years, the Chinese government has artificially kept prices of electricity, water, and natural gas low through subsidies to promote economic development. Unfortunately, this has promoted waste by end users and was expensive to the government. Last year, they increased these prices to true market levels. This came as a shock to many and added to perceptions of greater inflation.
• To deal with an over-heated high- and middle-end housing problem in coastal cities last year, the Chinese government implemented a number of draconian macroeconomic policies. They've worked as hot money has been taken out of the housing sector. Yet, evidence existsthat speculation and hoarding has flowed into food items such as onions, beans, peanut oil, corn, ginger, apples, and sugar. Food CPI increased by almost 12% last year, which contributed to two-thirds of the overall increase in the Chinese CPI.
• The Chinese government has been trying to migrate the Chinese economy from one driven by foreign exports to domestic consumption. This is seen as more stable and less vulnerable to some foreign Lehman-like shock in the future.

  The government's efforts have been successful. Last year, Chinese consumer spending increased 18.4% to 154 trillion yuan from the prior year. Yet, such consumption doesn't occur without requiring more raw materials to build televisions and appliances. It's a big reason why -- in the last year -- cotton was up 88%, wheat 54%, sugar 38%, and copper 21%.

• The migration of many rural workers to bigger cities to pursue higher standards of living have resulted in stories of "empty villages" back in the country with insufficient labor to grow the needed crops. Lower agricultural demand in turn drives up prices. China has been a net importer of food for many years already. As purchasing power increases in the coming years, the Chinese desire to feed themselves a higher protein diet will further exacerbate prices.
• With an expectation that the yuan will need to be revalued upwards in the coming years and with China's relative outperformance in the global economy, hot money continues to flow into China . That creates additional inflationary pressures.

Beyond these factors, 2010 saw sand storms in Inner Mongolia, droughts in Southwest China, an earthquake in Central China, floods in Hainan Island, and drought, fires and floods in Russia and Pakistan. All these kept an upward pressure on Chinese commodity pricing.

So, while none of these actions by the Chinese government was wrong at the time, it's clear they now have a difficult balancing act of keeping their foot on the gas to drive economic growth will tamping down inflation.

Simply de-pegging the yuan from the dollar won't eliminate all inflationary forces bubbling at the moment. However, the Chinese government would benefit in the long run more from a more rapid increase in the valuation of the yuan than their current go-slow approach. There will continue to need to be increased interest rate and reserve requirement hikes to help moderate the economy.

.......

[** This post is an excerpt of the full article, which is available on TheStreet.com by clicking here. Free Site.**]

Sphere: Related Content

Video: The Complex Roots of China's Inflation

Contributor Eric Jackson says China's inflation is white-hot and has more to do with past actions its own government has taken than Ben Bernanke's QE2. Swift action is needed this year by the Chinese government to get the problem under control

Thu 02/24/11 10:23 AM EST -- Eric Jackson

Stocks in this video: YUAN | USD | MACRO | FXI

Sphere: Related Content

QE2's Unintended Global Consequences

By Eric Jackson, Senior Contributor11/10/10 - 06:00 AM EST

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke did the right thing in launching QE2 last week. Nevertheless, it's spawned a rash of criticism from the likes of Kevin Warsh, Germany's finance minister, and Sarah Palin.

On a recent trip to China, I got a chance to read the excellent In Fed We Trust by David Wessell about Bernanke and his recent years at the Federal Reserve. What was clear in the profile is that, while Bernanke acknowledges that he was slow to see the extent of the subprime problem coming in 2006 through the first half of 2008, he has been aggressively doing "whatever it takes" ever since to slay the dragon of a deflation-driven recession.

After a life in academia studying the Great Depression and -- more recently -- Japan's travails from a 20-year deflation slide, Bernanke has good reason to fear an economy falling back into a quicksand pit.

Bernanke knows two things about his public perception. First, he, like politicians, gets no credit for any actions he took that prevented problems from happening two years ago and second, there's an inherent bias that the Fed and certainly among the mainstream press and the public to fear inflation much more than deflation.

As late as early September 2008, Bernanke was fighting fellow Fed governors' hearts and minds against the imminent threat of inflation. Runaway inflation is a much easier concept for Glenn Beck to diagram on a chalkboard compared to runaway deflation. What's the schematic for that?

So, three cheers for Bernanke taking action last week. He and the Fed governors have a dual mandate: full employment and price stability for the US economy. Given the data and where we are in this recovery, the Fed made the right call.

But Ben Bernanke doesn't have responsibility for the rest of the world and, unfortunately, there will be challenging unintended consequences of his actions last week on other emerging economies.

Specifically, China and other economies -- like Hong Kong -- with their currencies pegged to the US dollar will feel added inflationary pressures on their already strong economies. Simply put, Bernanke's explicit prescription for healing the U.S. economy is now gas being poured on to already hot economies who bounced back remarkably quickly from the crisis two years ago.

In a recent letter to his investors, renowned hedge fund manager Paul Tudor Jones complained about the Chinese yuan's peg to the US dollar: "On January 1, 1994, China devalued its currency by 50% in a single day, and since then has experienced a manufacturing boom. After 15 years of impressive productivity gains relative to its trading partners, though, it now resists the smallest appreciation.... "As someone who has traded foreign exchange since 1980, I believe the RMB/USD rate is currently the single most important of all exchange rates. It not only drives the largest foreign trade relationship in the world, it also drives virtually every other exchange rate globally. Dozens of other emerging market countries suppress their exchange rate against the US dollar because the RMB is effectively pegged to the dollar."

........

[** This post is an excerpt of the full article, which is available on TheStreet.com by clicking here. Free Site.**]

Sphere: Related Content

Benmosche Bests Pandit

08/26/09 - 09:07 AM EDT

C , AIG , MET , WFC

By Eric Jackson

NEW YORK (TheStreet) -- The federal government is running some of America's largest and formerly most influential companies, including Citigroup, AIG(AIG Quote), Bank of America(BAC Quote) and GM.

The track record of government managing -- let alone turning companies around -- businesses is poor. Still, it's calling the tune at the moment, sitting in on internal meetings, pushing out CEOs (like GM's Rick Wagoner), CFOs (like Citigroup's Ned Kelly) and directors (see the reconstitution of the Bank of America board since its April shareholders meeting), and determining whether prearranged pay packages should still be treated as valid contracts.

Yet, the government, with all the best intentions, will never turn around these companies. It's the companies themselves and their employees who must turn things around. AIG and its new CEO Robert Benmosche get that, while Citigroup and its CEO Vikram Pandit don't. Both companies are extreme corporate basket-cases now controlled by the government on behalf of taxpayers. Yet, the styles of Benmosche and Pandit couldn't be more different.

Pandit's been the quintessential invisible CEO: quiet, passive, and immediately forgettable when he does speak. Benmosche is on the other end of the spectrum: straight-talking, aggressive, asking challenging questions, and lots of slaps on the back. Benmosche doesn't suffer fools gladly; Pandit appears to suffer fools for years without saying boo.

As horrible as AIG has been as an investment since last fall, Citigroup has been worse. AIG's stock price is 15% higher than Citigroup's since the government took over the company. When the market learned of Benmosche's hiring and digested some of his positive comments on the company, it responded positively, sending up AIG's stock by 35% last week (and still higher this week).

Although I've yet to meet with a Pandit apologist (maybe the only ones are Citigroup's directors who hired him), if I did, they'd likely say he is just one man and certainly didn't cause Citigroup to be the unmitigated disaster it is today. They'd also say one person -- even the CEO -- isn't responsible for a company's stock price.

Certainly there are many people who also deserve blame for Citigroup's current state of affairs: John Reed, Sandy Weill, the entire board, including Dick Parsons and Bob Rubin and Chuck Prince. Yet, Pandit's been in the corner office for almost two years during the crisis. Citigroup's stock price fell in lockstep with Bank of America's from the fall through the March lows. Yet, since then, Bank of America is up 90% more than Citigroup. Yes, assets and past underperforming loans matter, but so does leadership. Pandit's been a dud as CEO, and that affects investors' interest in the company.

Recall that back in early October last year Citigroup was trading at $23.50 after the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. backed it to buy Wachovia over a competing offer from Wells Fargo(WFC Quote). Five months later, Citigroup's shares touched 97 cents. It's been a breathtaking evisceration of the former king of the American financial world. Pandit has done little to inspire investor confidence.

Pandit's response to being owned by the government since taking TARP money has been to shrink back even further from public scrutiny and contact with staff. The introverted, bookish professor has become even more bookish.

When he has spoken up, it's irked regulators and peers alike. Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase(JPM Quote) called Pandit a "jerk" under his breath on a conference call with Treasury last fall. Lloyd Blankfein has joked that Citigroup was crazy. One business journalist summed it up to me this way: "I've never seen a Wall Street CEO who gets punked that often."

Where is the leadership going to come from? Sheila Bair is not going to turn this company around. Neither is Tim Geithner or Ben Bernanke. Did Citigroup also sign an addendum to receiving its TARP funding that it had to manage its affairs as if no one were really in charge?

Contrast Pandit's style with Benmosche's, the former head of MetLife(MET Quote) and new head of AIG. If any company is a ward of the state more than Citigroup, it's AIG -- it's actually a $182.5 billion ward.

Yet, here was Benmosche coming out swinging last week. He said in an internal town hall meeting that he sees the government as only one of several critical stakeholders -- the others being clients in the U.S., Asia, and Europe; employees, and then "the people we owe money to" (otherwise known as the government).

Benmosche said undoubtedly AIG would have to sell some of its businesses to pay back the government but ruled out an imminent sale for its investment advisory business and said other asset sales could wait until the company received full value. "I don't liquidate things; I build things," he said. "If the government wanted this money back quick, they shouldn't have come in in the first place."

Benmosche even had the nerve to suggest his management team should have the flexibility to pay its employees more if they've just "shot the lights out" in a given year.

Financial blogger Barry Ritholtz called him "totally absurd" to think he's going to pay back the government "in our lifetime." Maybe. But, if you worked for AIG (or were a stockholder), you cheered last week. It's clear who's in charge at this company. It's not the regulators but actually the AIG and its employees. This is quite a contrast in styles from his caretaker predecessor, Ed Liddy, and of course Pandit.

Benmosche finished an employee town hall meeting recently, warning: "My fear is that you'll say, 'I don't know if Treasury wants it, I don't know if the Fed wants it, I don't know if the lawyers want it, I don't know whatever.' If you sit there every day not making the right decisions to take us to the next level, we'll miss an opportunity."

And, he's exactly right. I'm for leaders who see the facts clearly and don't lead their organizations off a cliff. Both Citigroup and AIG went over the cliff a long time ago. They're down in the valley -- but they're still going concerns and they still need leaders. They're not going to be shut down and shouldn't be led by CEOs who would be suited for winding down companies -- like Pandit.

Ask yourself, if you were working in the bowels of one of these companies, who would your dig deeper for: Benmosche or Pandit? That hidden effort will start to show itself in the operating results and stock price in the coming quarters.

The government would be wise to get out of the way of these companies as quick as it can -- assuming there are competent management and directors. The government and taxpayers deserve the best long-term return on their investment, but they aren't suited to micromanage the businesses. They should get the right managers, get the right risk management and get out of the way.

The CEOs of Citigroup and AIG should push back on government requests when they are unreasonable or at odds with the long-term interests of the business. Benmosche appears well-suited to do that; Pandit doesn't.

We got into the current mess by too many people at AIG, Citigroup, and other firms playing fast and loose with other people's money with poor or no risk management. To fix that, we've needed government intervention.

We've got to get back to a true free market system. To heal these firms and our economy, leaders and employees at AIG and Citigroup need to treat assets they oversee as if it's their own money and -- with proper risk oversight -- start making free choices again on how to grow those assets.

-- Written by Eric Jackson in Naples, Fla.

At the time of publication, Jackson had no positions in stocks mentioned.

Eric Jackson is founder and president of Ironfire Capital and the general partner and investment manager of Ironfire Capital US Fund LP and Ironfire Capital International Fund, Ltd.

Sphere: Related Content

Minding the New York Fed

07/09/09 - 08:59 AM EDT

BAC , MS , GS , AIG , PEP , C , GE

Eric Jackson

We were all riveted last fall by the economic meltdown, which pulled down Lehman (now absorbed into Barclays (BCS Quote)) and Merrill (now part of Bank of America (BAC Quote) and forced many of us to consider the previously inconceivable outcome of a total collapse of the capital markets.

Through it all, then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, and then-head of the New York Fed Tiimothy Geithner, tried to orchestrate an acceptable soft landing for all market participants. Many of the most pivotal planning sessions during that dark time happened at the offices of the New York Fed.

Yet, who was watching over the New York Fed at the time? As it turns out, many of the market actors were central in the drama playing out, including Lehman head Dick Fuld, who was a New York Fed director then.

Did Dick Fuld really deserve to have a say on whether BofA should buy Merrill, or on the fates of AIG(AIG Quote), Morgan Stanley (MS Quote) and Goldman Sachs (GS Quote)?

The board of directors of the New York Fed was poorly composed then, and it remains highly problematic today. Changes need to be made.

The New York Fed is basically the on-the-ground interface between Wall Street's biggest banks and the Federal Reserve. It plays part policy adviser, part diplomat and part message-runner between the two sometimes very different worlds. The bank plays a critical role in how policy is set and implemented.

During several critical moments last year (with the downfall of Bear and Lehman, the shotgun marriage between Merrill and BofA and later the pressuring of BofA to follow through with the merger) and no doubt in the future, the New York Fed has and will play a critical role in real-time decisions that can have ramifications on our markets and the broader economy for years.

It's reasonable to better understand who ultimately was responsible for directing and judging if Geithner was doing his job effectively last year. That responsibility falls on the New York Fed's board of directors.

That group is divided into three classes of directors three Class A directors who are from member banks and who are elected by member banks; three Class B directors who are elected by member banks to represent the interests of the public, and three Class C directors who are elected by the New York Fed's board of governors (who are all appointed by the president) to represent the interests of the public.

The Class A directors have been problematic in the last eight months. First, Fuld was one of them last fall when his firm became the focal point of concern for the entire U.S. financial system. Later, Stephen Freidman, then-chairman of the New York Fed and formerly with Goldman Sachs(GS Quote), was forced to resign amid revelations that he had purchased stock in his old firm -- raising questions about his impartiality overseeing the entire financial system.

There's no evidence that either Fuld or Friedman took any actions that benefitted either of those firms in their New York Fed roles, but, in matters of corporate governance, appearances count.
Currently, three of the nine seats on the New York Fed's board are vacant. It's not clear when they will be filled. Of the current directors, all three Class A directors are in place representing the interests of the member banks.

Jeff Immelt of General Electric(GE Quote) is the only Class B director. His job is to represent the public in that role. However, it's clear that his day job of overseeing GE Finance also makes him sympathetic to the needs of the member banks. Only two of the three Class C seats are filled (Lee Bollinger, the president of Columbia University, and Denis Hughes, the president of the New York State AFL-CIO).

Based on this composition, you could fairly make the case that the current board of the New York Fed is more weighted to look out for the interests of the bankers than the interests of the taxpayers and the broader economy. That needs to be immediately corrected. That means getting more experienced business executives like Pepsi(PEP Quote) CEO Indra Nooyi back on the board as Class B directors and replacing Jeff Immelt with another business executive who runs a company not as financially dependent as GE Finance.

Additionally, the open Class C position should be quickly filled with a director who is business savvy but will represent taxpayers first and foremost. Ideally, the Class C director should be someone who knows something about corporate governance and can bring that perspective to the New York Fed's board. Ira Millstein of the law firm Weil Gotshal & Manges would be fit the bill nicely.

There have been other bothersome governance issues cropping up at the New York Fed recently. It was recently reported that former New York Fed President Geithner advised the current board members to select his former lieutenant, William Dudley, as his replacement.

Although this happens a lot in companies (think Citigroup's(C Quote), Sandy Weill telling his board to replace him with then general counsel Chuck Prince), it is always a bad idea. Former CEOs and presidents can have cloudy judgment on these kinds of issues, affected by legacy or loyalty.

It's also been reported that it was due to Geithner's strong advice about hiring Dudley that former Class B director Nooyi recently stepped down from the board entirely. Take all these incidents together and you can't blame her.

The New York Fed plays a critical role in the healthy functioning of our capital markets. In my view, member danks deserve to have a seat at the table of the board of directors, but the majority of views should be separate from Wall Street and ensure that Wall Street's actions are serving the interests of the entire economy. The Federal Reserve and the U.S. government should immediately take steps to ensure that this organization's governance matches the standards they wish to see implemented in the big Wall Street banks they oversee.

Sphere: Related Content