Coyote Blog

I have already read several commenters who have wondered how Skilling could be convicted of fraud (in the form of obscuring Enron's true financial health) but acquitted of most charges of insider trading.  Larry Ribstein (via Professor Bainbridge) asks

"Does this mean that the jury thought he didn't know enough about what
was happening to bar him from trading, but that he did know enough to
go to jail for fraud?"

Here is how I reconcile it:  The jury decided that Skilling committed fraud, but that it was not for personal gain in his stock.  How can that be?  What other incentive might he have?  Here is my explanation, based on some personal knowledge of Skilling and the Enron business model.

Enron's business model was Skilling's brainchild.  It was nearly 100% his baby.  He invented it at McKinsey and then moved to Enron to make it reality.  The trading model Enron adopted reflected Skilling's ability to handle a lot of complexity and his facility for numbers.  The failure of Enron would be a direct personal failure of Skilling's, perhaps the first and certainly the largest of his life.  Even without holding a single share of stock, Skilling had every incentive to want Enron to survive and in fact thrive.  Enron's failure would be a repudiation of his vision, a forceful proof that maybe he was not as smart as everyone thought he was.

Like nearly every new financial trading business, Enron at first enjoyed large margins on their trading deals.  This has happened throughout history, as the first traders who discover an arbitrage opportunity make lots of money.  However, over time, competition and general knowledge of the arbitrage opportunity tends to erode margins.  Eroding margins are a problem in every business, but particularly in trading.  Here's why:

Trading businesses typically make their money by executing huge transactions at thin margins.  These transactions require a lot of capital, and since margins are narrow, trading companies need to maintain a very low cost of capital.  For a company like Enron, this means maintaining a high stock price and platinum level credit to minimize borrowing costs.

The trap Enron fell into was not a new one.  As trading margins inevitably eroded (as described above) the company had to do more and more volume to maintain profits (it takes twice the volume of transactions when margins are halved to maintain profits at an even level).  But remember, Enron needed a high and growing stock price to keep its cost of capital as low as possible.  So it needed to show ever growing profits, which means in an environment of falling margins, trading volumes had to go up almost exponentially.  But, increasing trading volumes means more capital, much of it in the form of debt.  Borrowing more increased cash demands and put pressure on ratings agencies to downgrade their debt, which would have disastrously increased borrowing costs.  At the same time, falling margins and rising debt meant falling coverage ratios.    Old line trading firms like Goldman Sachs and Soloman Brothers have mostly avoided this trap by carefully husbanding and building their capital over decades.  But Enron tried to build the trading business too fast.

So you see the tiger Enron management was riding.  Any blip in their cost of capital, whether it be a fall in stock price or a downgrading of their debt, would crash the whole company.  But falling margins and a growing need for debt nearly guaranteed that their cost of capital was going to go up.  At first, management sought new growth avenues (e.g. broadband) or windfalls (e.g. California energy crisis) to make ends meet.  Eventually, management appears to have fibbed to bond and equity markets, in the form of false statements and burying the bad stuff in SPE's, trying to keep things from crashing.  Eventually, outsiders figured out what was going on, the commercial paper market dried up, and Enron faced a liquidity crisis that brought the whole thing down rapidly.

In this context, Lay and Skilling's obfuscation of the underlying financial health of the company makes sense.  Enron had reached a point where bad news about the business would do more than just depress the stock price - it could start a chain reaction that would bring the whole company to bankruptcy.  Knowing this, Lay and Skilling apparently sought to hide the true condition of the company, to try to buy time to find some way out.  Skilling, much much smarter than Lay, at some point probably realized that the crash could not be avoided and that's why he suddenly quit.  The tragedy (self-induced, of course) for these men is that nothing was going to prevent the eventual crisis, and Lay and Skilling bought a few months delay in Enron's downfall at the cost of what will probably be their freedom for the next several decades.

So, was Skilling a robber baron intent on nothing more than enriching himself at the expense of shareholders?  Or was he a visionary entrepreneur, who just couldn't accept that his dream and creation of over a decade's work was dying?  I don't really know, even having known the man personally, but the jury's verdict seems to point as much to the latter than the former.  And if it is the latter, has there ever been a visionary who was not the last person to admit his vision was a failure?  I can't tell you how many entrepreneurs I knew in the Internet bubble who were convinced their company was going to be successful almost right up to the day of bankruptcy.  Are we really better off as a society putting all these failed visionaries in jail?

I guess I end up with mixed feelings about the legacy of the case.  I certainly am worried about the prosecutorial abuse.  And cooking the books of a public company is bad and should result in jail time. Having worked once long ago with Skilling, I know for a fact that the man is brilliant and totally detail oriented.  There was no way he could not know about the SPE shenanigans, and for that alone he should face jail time.  My concern is that the other message, beyond just accounting fraud, of this case will be that we are criminalizing CEO's being overly optimistic about their company. And that strikes me as nuts.

Update:  Tom Kirkendall, who has been all over this case, has more here.  Larry Ribstein, whose question started this post, observed:

Many people think that there was so much loss associated Enron that the
guys at the center of it must have been villains. But they weren't
villains. The jury is saying they weren't even insider traders, as if
that would have made a difference. They lost as much as anybody, and
that's what drove them to lie, if they did lie. This doesn't make them
saints, but it should make even the most hardcore antibusiness types
queasy with the denouement of this tragedy. Locking these guys up for
pretty much the rest of their adult lives for being unable to face the
fact that their dream had ended is not the way a civilized society
would deal with this case.

Technorati Tags:  Enron, Skilling

I have been stuck in rural Colorado a few days, my stay extended by a pretty good spring snowstorm up in the high country.  I was visiting our new Colorado marina.  Finally getting to the airport, I found a backlog of unapproved comments, which I have passed through in mass.  Sorry for the delay, but blame spam-bots.  I hate having to approve comments to filter spam as much as you must hate the delay in seing your comments appear.

The other day in this post I, for the first and last time, wrote that my commenters needed to educate themselves.  I knew this was a stupid thing to write, leading with my chin, as it were.  I have posted all kinds of dumb stuff, and a number of things that I have been informed were outright errors (see the update to that same post, for example).  My commenters are great and often more knowlegeable than I am, so it was a dumb tone to adopt.  My only excuse is that I had about 5 emails in a row that confused the trade deficit with the federal budget deficit and the national debt, and I was ready to scream. 

I'm sorry.

After spending gobs of electrons on this post about the US trade deficit explaining why it is not a debt, and is not even necessarily bad, I got a depressing number of comments and emails like this one:

The trade deficit is a debt. We cannot get the dollars back we have
spendt unless we export to get them back. It is called an external debt
for a reason. It is called a current account debto for a reason.

Aaaaargh.  It is depressing that we can get such economic ignorance, particularly in a self-righteous way.  The crappy media coverage of these issues has people convinced that it just has to be this big old debt out there someone is going to have to repay someday. 

OK, I will try again.  But in response to this specific post, it is only called "external debt" or "current account debt" rather than "deficit" by really, really sloppy media people who have no idea what they are talking about (unfortunately, there are a lot of these).  And a deficit is not a debt, though it can sometimes create a debt.

I try to be very respectful of my readers.  I never delete a comment, unless it is spam/bot stuff or in a few cases where commenters have asked me to.  So it is only with the deepest respect that I say the following:  Please do not bother to comment on this post if a) you do not understand the difference between the federal government deficit and the trade deficit and/or b) you do not understand the difference between an account deficit and a debt.  Seriously.  Just take my word for it that you need to educate yourself a bit first, and then feel free to leap into the debate.  (Update:  This was a poor tone to adopt, see here).

First, A Thought Experiment

This is not meant to constitute proof, but for those who are concerned that the trade deficit is potentially disastrous for our economy, I can only ask, When?  Because we have been running a substantial trade deficit as a nation for over a quarter of a century, and by all accounts, over that same time period, we have had just about the strongest economy in the world.  In fact, I would propose that the causation is more likely just the reverse.  Because we have had a strong economy, with extraordinary wealth creation, we have taken some of that wealth and spent it on goods from other nations.  And because we have the safest nation in the world in which to invest, demand for our local investments tends to shift exchange rates in a way that increase the trade deficit.

In the late 80's and early 90's, everyone was in a panic about Japan.  We were running a massive trade imbalance with Japan.  They were going to buy all of our real estate.  Their government was tipping the scales in their own favor.  They were purposefully depressing the yen to encourage exports.  Blah, blah, etc, etc.  And you know what happened?  They subsequently went into a decade and a half long recession they are only just now climbing out of, and we had one of the strongest economies in history. 

How do the Dollars Get Back?

With a couple of exceptions that don't really change our conclusions, dollars do follow a closed loop.  In other words, if we send them to China or India, they generally eventually come back.   The question is how.  To understand this, it is first important to understand that the balance of trade deficit only measures some monetary flows.  In particular, it looks at the balance between manufactured goods traveling between two countries.  If the US has a $20 billion trade deficit with China, it means that they shipped $20 billion more of manufactured goods to us than we shipped back to them.  It includes some but not all services.  It does not include goods or securities or investments purchased by foreigners that remain on US soil.

To understand how the dollars come back from China in a closed loop is to, in a sense, ask the question of what monetary flows are not included in the trade deficit.  If we have a trade deficit with China, there are a number of things it can do with its extra dollars:

1. It can do nothing with them - just hold them in a big pile
2. It can lend the money to people buying their products
3. It can buy certain US services
4. It can buy US goods, but not take them out of the US
5. It can buy US public and private securities and real estate

Lets look at each in turn

1.  China can do nothing with them - just hold them in a big pile

Two words:  In-Sane.  By just holding them, they would effectively be sticking them in a mattress and foregoing any interest or investment income.  It's just not going to happen.  And don't say, well they could just put the dollars in a Chinese bank.  Fine, but the only way the Chinese bank is going to pay interest on dollars in the bank is if they turn around and invest the dollars in dollar-denominated investments.  One way or the other, the money, if it does not buy anything else, will get invested, which we will deal with in point 5.

I know there are paranoiacs that worry that the Chinese, despite the financial disincentives, will hold these dollars anyway in a big vault or something out of spite.  Gee, hurt me, hurt me.  Holding our dollars in a big mattress in Peking does nothing to hurt us.  And dumping them all on the market simultaneously may sound scary to conspiracy theorists, but in practice it would hurt them worse than it would hurt us, and the pain would be relatively short-lived  (just ask the Hunt brothers about this strategy).

2.  China can lend the money to people buying their products

I suppose that for those who don't get the federal deficit and the trade deficit mixed up, this is what they assume is happening, that Americans are borrowing from the Chinese to finance manufactured goods purchases.  The only problem is that it is not happening, at least to a greater extent than any normal purchase-financing arrangements.  Take corporations such as Wal-mart, a huge buyer of Chinese stuff.  Is Wal-Mart going into debt to buy Chinese stuff?  No, and certainly not to the Chinese. 

Well, are individual Americans going into debt to buy Chinese.  Maybe, but the key point is that they are not going into debt because what they are buying is Chinese.  They are going into debt because Americans, for whatever reason good or bad, are saving less and choosing to buy more on credit.  This would be happening if what they were buying was Chinese or American made.  In other words, American consumers may have debt, but that debt would exist even if we had no trade deficit with China.  It is a personal choice people are making that has no relation to the source of goods.

3.  China can buy certain US services

Note that many US services are not included in the trade deficit calculations.  If Chinese companies engage McKinsey & Co. consultants in the US to figure out how to sell more stuff to Wal-mart, those payments for services are probably bringing dollars back to the US from China, but aren't included in the trade calculations.  This really is just a subset of point four:

4.  China can buy US goods, but not take them out of the US

Many, many of the dollars the Chinese end up with come back to us in this way.  As did many of the dollars the Japanese had in the eighties.  If a Chinese company uses dollars not to buy US goods and take them back to China, but buy them and consume them in the US, then this does not show up in the trade numbers.  Chinese and Japanese companies bring their US dollars to the US to build factories and infrastructure.  This is sometimes why it is said that the trade deficit is not a measure of differences in cash flows, but of a difference in where goods are consumed. 

If you flip the equation around, the Chinese have a wicked balance of stuff deficit.  They are sending a lot more manufactured goods to the US than they get back.  I could argue that Chinese workers are getting hosed, since they only get to enjoy a fraction of the goods they produce for themselves, since a large portion of the product of their labor is sent overseas for others to enjoy.  Hmmm, doesn't sound so bad that way.

5.  China can buy US public and private securities and real estate

Of course, what happens with a lot of the US dollars the Chinese find themselves with is that these dollars get invested in US investment vehicles, from real estate to government bonds to private equities.  There are several points that need to be made here:

a.  Just Because Chinese invest in US Government Bonds does not make them or the balance of trade responsible for this debt

As I intimated above, a lot of people get the US federal budget deficit confused with the trade deficit.  Making this confusion worse, the Chinese use a lot of the dollars they earn in trade to buy US Government Bonds that help finance the federal budget deficit.  Now, by buying a lot of government bonds, one might argue that the Chinese lower interest rates and make government borrowing easier, thus making the federal budget deficit worse since there is a ready source of debt financing. 

While there may be a link here, it is tenuous at best.  If the government was a private company, then its borrowing level might rationally fluctuate up and down based on interest rates and capital availability.  But the US Government is not this rational.  It runs a budget deficit primarily because legislators and bureaucrats alike have the incentive to spend other people's money to protect their jobs and power base.  This happens equally at 3% interest rates and 9% interest rates.  It happens equally if guys from Peking or Omaha are buying government bonds.  In fact, one could argue that Chinese reinvestment of their trade dollars in US securities actually marginally reduces the government debt by reducing interest costs.

This same argument holds equally true for Chinese investments in private debt.  Chinese dollars may increase borrowing slightly, but only because the influx of their cash reduces borrowing costs.

b.  Chinese Ownership of US Assets is GOOD

In the Japanese scare of the 1980's, everyone was freaked out that the Japanese were buying up American assets and real estate.  During that time, while I almost never play the race card, it was almost impossible not to come to the conclusion that some racism had to be involved in this fear.  America had welcomed, in fact, had prospered, via foreign investment for years.  For a century, the US has been the safest place for foreigners to put their money,something we should be proud of  -- A sign of strength, not weakness.

But suddenly, everything was different because the new buyers were Japanese.  Note the following:

Despite the notoriety of
Japanese investors, the British have the largest U.S. direct investment
holding"”with the Dutch not far behind"”as has been the case since
colonial times. In 1990 the United Kingdom held about 27 percent of
foreign direct investment in the United States, significantly greater
than Japan's 21 percent. The European Economic Community (EC)
collectively holds about 57 percent. Moreover, according to research by
Eric Rosengren, between 1978 and 1987, Japanese investors acquired only
94 U.S. companies, putting them fifth behind the British (640),
Canadians (435), Germans (150), and French (113).

But no one was complaining about the British, Canadians, Germans, or French.  Only the Japanese.  I have to come to the conclusion that there was some racism involved, with the same primal fears at work that caused us to ship US citizens of Japanese decent off to concentration camps in WWII but we did not do the same of citizens of German or Italian decent.  And in this case, it could not have been security concerns.  Since 1945, Japan is one of the most pacifistic nations in the world- we probably face a bigger security threat from Belgium than we do from Japan.

I get the same feeling today with the China panic that I did twenty years ago with Japan.  Its a race and a culture we don't understand well, so we get xenophobic.  People lament that China is a real security threat, and that certainly is true to an extent.  But ask yourself this - Is China more or less of a threat to hurt us if their economy, their financial prosperity, and most of their assets are tied to the US?  Is China more or less stable now that their people are not starving and they are rapidly developing the largest middle class in the world?

Conclusion

If you are still having trouble understanding, the problem may be that you insist on thinking of economics as zero-sum.  This is the fallacy of 18th century mercantilists, who saw the economy as a big fixed tank, and if more flowed overseas than flowed back, the tank level would fall until the country was bankrupt.  There are at least two key fallacies here:

1. Wealth is not zero-sum.  It is created.  It is expanded.  Some can even be spent frivolously on big ass plasma TV's from China and we are still wealthier than we were decades ago.
2. Trading has value in both directions.  As mentioned above, looking at only the currency side of trading misses a lot.  By definition, in a free trade, both sides believe the trade increases the value to themselves, or they would not have made the trade.  So trading per se, no matter what the currency flows, can only lead to wealth creation, not its destruction.

Postscript - New Mercantilism

Lamenting the trade deficit is always a precursor to interfering with free trade.  It is important to note that free trade has always led to prosperity, while protectionism has always led to stagnation. 

Several protectionists today are trying to make the argument that OK, that might have been true in the past, but today is different, and today, free trade is uniquely bad.  Economist Paul Craig Roberts made this argument, that, as Don Boudreaux summarizes it:

the American standard of living is threatened by the world's growing
prosperity, improved education, better governance, and greater fluidity
of capital and resources to move in search of higher returns

Boudreaux, a writer at the fabulous Cafe Hayek, does a good fisking of this argument, but I think I can demolish it even faster.  By this logic, California would be better off if the eastern part of the US was suddenly impoverished and made educationally backwards.  This is absurd.   Sure, the industrial east suffered some temporary dislocations as the south modernized and competed for factories.  But this was only temporarily.  As the south got richer, it wasn't a contest between regions for a fixed number of factories, the number of factories and jobs grew, so that all parts of the country had more. 

Is there anyone who thinks that half of the US would be better off
economically if the other half were turned into a third world nation?  Is there any company executive that thinks they could survive if half their market went away?  So why is half the world better off if the other half is impoverished?  If you are saying, gee, the only reason I can come up with is that zero-sum fallacy Coyote keeps talking about, go to the head of the class.

Update:  In comments and emails, my readership educates me that citizens of German and Italian decent were interned in WWII as well.  While I knew that Germans and Italian POW's were interned in large numbers in the US in WWII, I was not aware of internship of US citizens with German or Italian blood, though the programs for these nationals do seem more limited than the west coast movement of Americans of Japanese decent.   My first and second generation German immigrant family members never reported being harassed in any way, either publicly or privately, during the war and most all served either in the US military or war production industries.  I will still stick by my core point that investment in the US by Asian nationals is not treated the same as investment by European or Canadian nationals.

I have also gotten a number of emails and comments on the differences between various trade and current account deficit indicators.  I tried to avoid getting into all that, assuming, I think rightly, that it would just clutter up the argument and would not substantially affect the conclusion.  Just for the record, though, there are many different metrics, that range from narrow measures of manufactured goods flows to much broader measures of capital and services flow.  You can assume that 90% of the time, the media article you are reading about the deficit probably does not correctly describe the metric it is using.

In perhaps the best example I have seen since Paul Ehrlich of zero-sum thinking, junkscience.com links to this article at the BBC:

A study by the New Economics Foundation (Nef) and the
Open University says 16 April is the day when the nation goes into
"ecological debt" this year.

It warns if annual global consumption levels matched the UK's, it would take 3.1 Earths to meet the demand.

How many times does this sort of stuff have to be wrong before it stops getting printed by "science writers" in the media.  Malthus made the same argument over a century ago, and Ehrlich has been making one bad prediction after another along these lines since the late 60's  The report relies on this concept:

The findings are based on the concept of "ecological
footprints", a system of measuring how much land and water a human
population needs to produce the resources it consumes and absorb the
resulting waste.

Of course, no one mentions that this "ecological footprint" number has changed dramatically with technology, not only in the last 200 years but even in the last 30.  For example, total US Farm acreage has fallen for the last fifty years, while agricultural production has grown between two and five times in the same period.   Its a stupid, meaningless analysis that says that if nothing else changed, and suddenly consumption went up, there would be a crisis.  It relies on the lack of imagination of both the authors (and to an extent, the audience), arguing that since they can't think of any way to grow production any further, it must not be possible.  I can just picture these guys as prehistoric man sitting in a cave making the same pronouncements of disaster for the species, all while their peers are busy outside playing with bone tools under the big black monolith.

More on the zero-sum fallacy here.

As a followup to this post on security as a Trojan horse for protectionism, I wanted to link this article in the WSJ($) called The Perils of Protectionism:

Fifty-six percent of the economists polled in the latest WSJ.com
forecasting survey -- conducted in the aftermath of a flap over foreign
management of U.S. ports -- say protectionism will lead to some
slowdown in U.S. growth over the next several years, and 8% predict
that the slowdown will be significant....

The ports controversy came at a time of growing concern about
protectionism around the world. It followed the blocked bid by China's
Cnooc Ltd. to acquire Unocal Corp. last year and emerged as European
governments angle to prevent high-profile utility deals within their
borders. The fear is that if governments take steps to shield their
countries' businesses, international trade and investment flows could
be reduced. Corporations will find it more difficult to reach new
markets.

Protectionism is unambiguously bad," said David Berson, chief economist
at Fannie Mae. Indeed, the free flow of capital across national borders
is conventionally looked upon by economists as a long-term good, and
69% of those surveyed say foreign ownership of U.S. assets is positive
for the economy in the long run.

One example of why the protectionist arguments are short-sighted is demonstrated by this passage from the same WSJ article:

While the ports row has receded, the U.S.'s large bilateral trade
deficit with China, which was $17.91 billion in January, remains a
flashpoint. Some lawmakers complain the imbalance has been inflamed by
an artifically low exchange rate for China's yuan against the dollar.
Though Beijing modestly revalued the yuan last summer, allowing it to
float in a narrow range against a basket of foreign currencies, critics
have continued to lash China's currency policy and call for further
revaluation.

So the Chinese government is artificially subsidizing the US economy through reduced prices of Chinese goods via a low valuation for the yuan vs. the dollar.  And that's a bad thing?  If the Chinese government is holding down the exchange rate, then they are in fact taking their money and the money of their citizens and pumping it into lower prices for US consumers and lower interest rates on US government debt.  Ooooh, color me really concerned.

As far as the "well, we're going into debt to pay for our consumerism" argument, I and others have tried and tried to educate the world that the trade deficit is not a debt, and running a trade deficit is not bad.

Kentucky, the state that made me get an egg license, is in the news again because it is complaining that it is not getting its fair share of the tobacco settlement funds, and so needs to increase cigarette taxes even more. 

Don't feel guilty if you can't actually remember what the settlement was about other than just more tax money.  The settlement was the result of a series of lawsuits from state AG's against cigarette companies arguing that use of their product is costing the states money in the form of higher medical costs (the health care as Trojan horse for total government control argument I have discussed before).  The substantially increased taxes on cigarettes was supposed to both deter use and to raise money for state health care.

Well, check out this statement form the Kentucky governor as to why he wants to raise the cigarette taxes, and notice what justifications for the taxes are NOT there:

The additional revenue from the tobacco settlement,
according to [governor] Fletcher, would increase the state's debt capacity and
allow for more spending on more projects, such as an information
technology research center and expanding the Big Bone Lick State Park.
He also says the added revenue would allow the state "to ease the tax
burden on small businesses."

I do have to admit that "Big Bone Lick" state park seems the perfect monument to government taxation.

This is a great example of the perverse incentives "sin" taxes put on government.  First put in place to reduce some behavior, once government officials become addicted to the spending the tax allows, the government tends to shift posture to supporting, rather than reducing, the "sin" since its continued existence is required to maintain tax revenues.  This is happening all over with the tobacco settlement, as government has suddenly become the tobacco companies' partner in maintaining revenues and market share.  And here I wrote about a similar occurrence.

Postscript:  By the way, not accounted for by the governor in his "fair share" of settlement funds are the large subsidies that flow to Kentucky tobacco growers.  In surely one of the best examples of how most government programs are all about rent-seeking rather than whatever their stated purpose is, the US is vigorously taxing tobacco, ostensibly to reduce its use, while at the same time aggressively subsidizing the production of tobacco.

Personally, I think you are insane to be a CEO or a board member of a public company under Sarbanes-Oxley.  There is no way I am going to sign a document on threat of prison that no one of the thousands of employees who work for me did anything to screw up the books.  Heck, I run a private company owned only by me where there is no incentive other than to report the numbers like they are, I sit next to my bookkeeper who is the only other one who touches the books, and I still find errors from time to time in past periods.

But what got me going on this post was a TV interview I tuned in the middle of last week.  I can't find a version online or even the name of the people interviewed, but the gist of the discussion was how Sarbanes-Oxley was going to prevent Enron-type situations that bankrupt investors.

I wonder how many people believe this?  Because Enron was going down, with or without the accounting shenanigans.  Its trading-based business model followed a life-cycle that should be familiar to anyone who has been in trading -- that is, they had unbelievable margins early on, but as others figured out what they were doing and duplicated it, the margins narrowed.  As trading margins narrow, the only way to maintain profits is to increase volume, leveraging up your capital into larger and larger trades at narrower and narrower spreads.  This volume strategy requires a very low cost of capital, which means low borrowing costs and a high stock price.  By hiding debt and losses in off-book subsidiaries, the Enron managers may have delayed the ultimate reckoning (by keeping equity prices high and its bond yields low), but the accounting games were not the cause of the failure.  In the same way, the march of long distance rates towards zero ultimately brought down Worldcom, not accounting.  In the latter case, if you borrow lots of money to buy long-distance companies, as Worldcom did,  assuming say 20 cent per minute long distance rates and then the rate goes to 5 cents, you are probably in trouble.

I am all for curbing the imperial CEO and giving shareholders and boards more power to police accounting and establish transparency.  I am not sure SarbOx does any of this.  My gut feel is that five years from now we will view SarbOx as more of an enabler for state attorney general self-promotion (as each races to try to prosecute some high-profile CEO for arcane accounting errors) and tort bar shenanigans.

I am honsetly curious, do any of you, as equity holders, feel better about your equities today with SarbOx than without it, especially given the added expense every company has had to take on?  It would be interesting to test the market's perceived value of SarbOx by allowing shareholders to vote to opt in or out of SarbOx.  Not only would their voting be interesting, but, if they opt out, it would be interesting to see if the stock price goes down (meaning SarbOx has perceived value) or up (meaning SarbOx is mostly perceived as extra regulatory expense).

After you finish this post, I have an updated post on the same topic here.

Well, the US trade deficit is up again, and you can be sure the news was accompanied by a lot of moaning and groaning and soul-searching.  The main reason that all the media and the majority of Americans freak out over large trade deficit numbers is that they look at the American economy as a large bank vault with a fixed supply of money on the shelves.  They reason that if more money is going out of the vault to buy things than is going back in from sales, then eventually the vault will go empty and we will be bankrupt.  Either implicitly or explicitly, those who fear trade deficits perceive the trade imbalance to be red ink, something bleeding out of a fixed supply.

This view of the trade deficit as a being a growing and unsustainable debt is wrong.  I will try to explain in a couple of ways.

The micro view

Lets first look at it from the perspective on one individual.  Lets say Fred made $50,000 this year, and lives in a US where, before he makes his spending decisions, trade is exactly in balance with China.  Fred spends some of his income on rent, and invests some in some nice US equities.  And he takes $1000 of what he just made that he might have saved and buys himself a nice Chinese-made plasma TV so he can really enjoy the Superbowl next year.

So, where's the debt?  One can argue that net savings is lower (perhaps - we haven't gotten yet to where the Chinese are spending their extra US dollars), but Fred seems to have increased the trade deficit without incurring any debt.  In fact, Fred is actually better off, since in a free society no one engages in a transaction that doesn't return more value than one spends.  In this case, the plasma TV provides more than $1000 of value back to Fred, or else he would not have engaged in the transaction. 

Yes, many people are buying Chinese TV's with consumer debt, but these same people are buying much more American stuff with consumer debt as well.  To the extent that there is or is not a "problem" with people taking on too much consumer debt, this problem is absolutely unrelated to the country of origin of the goods they are buying.  You can max out your Visa card on American stuff just as easily as on Chinese stuff.

But wait, you say.  The reason the debt is not obvious is from the way I structured the problem.  I assumed the rest of the economy was static while Fred was making his decision.  But if Fred had bought American, somewhere in the US economy there must have been less debt.  So we will tackle this next.

The Economy is Not Zero Sum

Repeat please:  The economy is not zero-sum.  Never has it been so hard to convince people of a concept that should be so obvious.  I used up bushels of electrons explaining why the economy is not zero sum here, but the short proof is easy:  Look at the world in 1900.  Look at it today.  The world as a whole and most every individual is far richer.  The fact is that economies create wealth every day, and free economies create a LOT of wealth.

At the heart of every argument that the trade deficit is bad is the mercantilist notion that the US economy is a bank vault leaking funds.  But this analogy that seems to be in everyone's head is flawed.  The supply of money or wealth in the US, in the vault, is constantly growing.  If you really have to think of it as a vault, then think of what's inside as rabbits rather than gold bars.  Does anyone doubt that if you start with a hundred rabbits and every year sent a few to China that you might still have more rabbits than you started with in the vault?  A free economy is like a group of rabbits on Viagra.  Even if the Chinese took billions of dollars they got from selling goods to the US each year and burned the money in a big bonfire, the US still would be growing in wealth.

Of course, the vault analogy sucks for a larger reason, that the US economy is deeply integrated with that of the rest of the world.  In fact, much of the wealth creation comes from this very integration, providing a more robust division of labor and a deeper well of creativity and entrepreneurship than any one country could achieve on its own.  And the dollars we send overseas don't stay there, they come back.  But we will address this next.

So What do the Chinese do with Those Dollars?

OK, so we are all short-sitedly (at least according the the "progressive" intelligentsia) sending dollars to China to satisfy our consumerism.  So what do those Chinese do with those dollars?  They can't spend them domestically, because stores and vendors in China don't accept dollars any more than the Wal-mart down the street from me accepts Yuan.

Most all the dollars have to come back to the US, or the person in China holding them gets no value.  You could say, well that person can take them to the bank and exchange them for Yuan, and that is true.  But that bank would not accept the dollars for exchange unless it knew it could get them back to the US, or had another client that needed them to make a purchase in the US.  So, the dollars will have to come back to the US to purchase something.

Some of the dollars come back to purchase US goods and raw materials, but of course this is less than the total dollars the Chinese have to spend, or else there would be no trade deficit.  In fact, this all that the words "trade deficit" really means.  It means that of the dollars the Chinese receive from sales to the US, only a portion is used to buy American goods that are shipped back to China.  The rest goes to buy American .. something else.

What?

Well, some of it goes to purchase American goods that stay in the US.  Lets shamelessly steal an analogy from Don Beadreaux and Jack Wenders.  If Chinese companies buy American steel and lumber and ship it to China, it shows up in the trade balance.  If they buy the same products and build a factory in the US, it does not.  The Chinese use a lot of their dollars to invest in buildings, real estate, capital assets, factories, production facilities, etc. in the US.  And this is bad, how?  I know that since the Japanese investment boom of the eighties, there are lots of folks who call themselves "liberal" who suddenly got very upset about foreigners owning US-based assets.  It is impossible for me to see this concern as anything but xenophobia and racism, since hundreds of years of Dutch, Canadian, and British investment never worried a soul but Japanese and Chinese investment has everyone in a lather. 

By the way, if you worry about China as a security threat, wouldn't you rather see them invested in the US economy, and therefore have a strong interest in our continued prosperity?  One could easily wonder why Saudi Arabia does not use their power over oil reserves to screw with the US like they tried to do in the early 70's.  The reason is that all of their wealth is invested in dollar and euro-denomitated assets.   People worry about the power the Saudis may have to mess with our economy, but their reinvestment of dollars back in our economy has made this a game of mutual assured destruction.  The same thing is occuring with China.

The other thing the Chinese do with the money is invest in dollar-denominated financial assets, which in many ways is just an indirect way of investing in the same capital assets listed above.  They will invest dollars in equities and, yes, debt securities.  But the fact that the Chinese choose to spend their dollars on debt securities does not mean that the trade deficit is causing the debt.  If the Chinese had a predilection for debt securities, more so than say an American holder of dollars, one might argue that this predilection drives down interest rates a bit and therefore might increase total debt, but this is a fairly tenuous chain of causation and not, I think, what seems to be bothering folks who panic over the trade deficit.  In fact, one can argue that the causation runs more strongly the other direction, that the large US budget deficit keeps the dollar higher than it might otherwise be, increasing the trade deficit.

So when people lament that "we now consume much more than we produce", they are making a meaningless statement because the we in the first part are not the same as the we in the second part.  The US and the Chinese are sending equal amounts of money back and forth - its has to be, over the medium to long term, or exchange rates would crash.  All the trade deficit means is that there is a difference in WHERE Chinese and Americans consume the goods.  Americans consume Chinese goods in the US.  The Chinese consume some of the US goods it buys in China, and then consumes the rest in the US.  The trade deficit represents the net amount of American goods and services the Chinese buy in the US and choose not to haul back to China.  Instead, they take ownership of the American goods here, in the form of capital assets or financial securities that represent ownership or calls on the cash flow of these capital assets. 

Anyway, you can find more here at Cafe Hayek.

Postscript:  By the way, the US has run a trade deficit of a magnitude that panics people for over two decades.  If this is bad, surely we would be able to find the damage somewhere.  But the US over the last two decades has had the strongest economy in the world.  I suspect that a lot of people would answer "we have run up a huge debt".  But any increase in total debt in the US is not relevant to the trade deficit, or only tangentially related as discussed above.  The Federal debt is run up because the politicians are all spending whores who support their reelection with "good works" paid for with our money.  Consumer debt, which may or may not be "too high", is based on individual spending and saving choices, and is unaffected by whether a person buys an American or Chinese TV.

The town of New London, CT, is assessing nearly 5 years back rent on Susette Kelo and other property holders whose land the Supreme Court recently allowed the city to confiscate.  As it stands, if New London has its way, Kelo will not only lose her house, she will also be wiped out financially, all for the crime of owning the land where New London wanted condos and hotels.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently found that the city's original seizure of
private property was constitutional under the principal of eminent domain, and
now New London is claiming that the affected homeowners were living on city land
for the duration of the lawsuit and owe back rent. It's a new definition of
chutzpah: Confiscate land and charge back rent for the years the owners fought
confiscation.

In some cases, their debt could amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Moreover, the homeowners are being offered buyouts based on the market rate as
it was in 2000...

The New London Development Corp., the semi-public organization hired by the
city to facilitate the deal, is offering residents the market rate as it was in
2000, as state law requires. That rate pales in comparison to what the units are
now worth, owing largely to the relentless housing bubble that has yet to burst.

"I can't replace what I have in this market for three times [the 2000
assessment]," says Dery, 48, who works as a home delivery sales manager for the New London Day . He soothes himself with humor:
"It's a lot like what I like to do in the stock market: buy high and sell low."

And there are more storms on the horizon. In June 2004, NLDC sent the seven
affected residents a letter indicating that after the completion of the case,
the city would expect to receive retroactive "use and occupancy" payments (also
known as "rent") from the residents.

In the letter, lawyers argued that because the takeover took place in 2000,
the residents had been living on city property for nearly five years, and would
therefore owe rent for the duration of their stay at the close of the trial. Any
money made from tenants, some residents' only form of income, would also have to be
paid to the city....

An NLDC estimate assessed Dery for $6,100 per month since the takeover, a
debt of more than $300K. One of his neighbors, case namesake Susette Kelo, who
owns a single-family house with her husband, learned she would owe in the
ballpark of 57 grand. "I'd leave here broke," says Kelo. "I wouldn't have a home
or any money to get one. I could probably get a large-size refrigerator box and
live under the bridge."

I want to barf.  Hat tip to Reason's Hit and Run.

Reason has a good article on helping Africa.  To some extent, their arguments echo the ones I made in my previous post:

Despite political pressures, increasing the U.S. foreign aid budget would be a
mistake. The true cause of Africa's poverty is the continent's long history of
crippling misgovernance"”a problem that is exacerbated by rich countries' trade
protectionism, particularly with respect to agriculture....

The aid is ineffective because of the appalling way in which Africa is
governed. In recent decades, of each dollar given to Africa in aid, 80 cents
were stolen by corrupt leaders and transferred back into Western bank accounts.
In total, Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo estimated, "corrupt African
leaders have stolen at least $140 billion from their people in the [four]
decades since independence." All that is left when these regimes eventually
collapse is a massive public debt.

The article discusses how US and European agricultural subsidies really hurt the poorest nations:

While advocates of current market-distorting agricultural policies do not
intend to harm developing nations, the collective effect of U.S. farm policies
is devastating for producers of agricultural goods worldwide. American farm
policies might provide short-term benefits for agricultural producers in the
U.S., but those benefits are more than offset by the cost to American consumers
who pay higher taxes to support the U.S. farmers and higher prices for
agricultural products. Meanwhile, U.S. tariffs, quotas, and export subsidies
exacerbate poverty in regions like sub-Saharan Africa where people are heavily
dependent upon agriculture....

U.S. agriculture policy undermines U.S. efforts to alleviate poverty because
it drives down global agricultural prices, which in turn cost developing
countries hundreds of millions of dollars in lost export earnings. The losses
associated with cotton subsidies alone exceed the value of U.S. aid programs to
the countries concerned. The British aid organization Oxfam charges that U.S.
subsidies directly led to losses of more than $300 million in potential revenue
in sub-Saharan Africa during the 2001/02 season. More than 12 million people in
this region depend directly on the crop, with a typical small-scale producer
making less than $400 on an annual cotton harvest. By damaging the livelihoods
of people already on the edge of subsistence, U.S. agricultural policies take
away with the right hand what the left hand gives in aid and development
assistance.

I am about at the end of my rope on listening to the current filibuster debate, all the more so because whatever side some Senator is on today, you can bet a pile of money that they were on exactly the opposite side 10 years ago, when the majority-minority positions of the two major parties was reversed.  Senators from both sides can argue all day that their current stand is "on principle", but this is crap.  If all these people's stands were "on principle", then about 100 Senators have completely changed their principles in the last 10 years. 

Before I take my shot at truly coming up with a solution "on principle", here is but one example of this switch of sides.  I will use the NY Times as an example, mainly because they are so much fun to criticize.  Thanks to Powerline for pointers to some of these editorials.

In their editorial titled "Senate on the Brink", dated March 6, 2005 the Times stated:

To block the nominees, the Democrats' weapon of choice has been the
filibuster, a time-honored Senate procedure that prevents a bare
majority of senators from running roughshod.

and further:

Now [the White House] threatens to do grave harm to the Senate. If Republicans fulfill
their threat to overturn the historic role of the filibuster in order
to ram the Bush administration's nominees through, they will be
inviting all-out warfare and perhaps an effective shutdown of Congress.

Wow! Its sure good that we have this filibuster thingie to protect our way of life.  And its great to have champions like the NY Times who are stalwart defenders of this procedure. 

Except when they are not.  Back when the majorities were reversed almost exactly a decade ago, on January 1, 1995 the NY times editorialized:

The U.S. Senate likes to call itself the world's greatest deliberative body. The
greatest obstructive body is more like it. In the last season of Congress, the
Republican minority invoked an endless string of filibusters to frustrate the
will of the majority. This relentless abuse of a time-honored Senate tradition
so disgusted Senator Tom Harkin, a Democrat from Iowa, that he is now willing to
forgo easy retribution and drastically limit the filibuster. Hooray for him.

For years Senate filibusters--when they weren't conjuring up romantic images
of Jimmy Stewart as Mr. Smith, passing out from exhaustion on the Senate
floor--consisted mainly of negative feats of endurance. Senator Sam Ervin once
spoke for 22 hours straight. Outrage over these tactics and their ability to
bring Senate business to a halt led to the current so-called two-track system,
whereby a senator can hold up one piece of legislation while other business goes
on as usual.

and further (note the Senators who are players in this quote 10 years ago):

Mr. Harkin, along with Senator Joseph Lieberman, a Connecticut Democrat, now
proposes to make such obstruction harder. Mr. Harkin says reasonably that there
must come a point in the process where the majority rules. This may not sit well
with some of his Democratic colleagues. They are now perfectly positioned to
exact revenge by frustrating the Republican agenda as efficiently as Republicans
frustrated Democrats in 1994.

Admirably, Mr. Harkin says he does not want to do that. He proposes to change
the rules so that if a vote for cloture fails to attract the necessary 60 votes,
the number of votes needed to close off debate would be reduced by three in each
subsequent vote. By the time the measure came to a fourth vote--with votes
occurring no more frequently than every second day--cloture could be invoked
with only a simple majority. Under the Harkin plan, minority members who feel
passionately about a given measure could still hold it up, but not indefinitely....

The Harkin plan, along with some of Mr. Mitchell's proposals, would go a long
way toward making the Senate a more productive place to conduct the nation's
business. Republicans surely dread the kind of obstructionism they themselves
practiced during the last Congress. Now is the perfect moment for them to unite
with like-minded Democrats to get rid of an archaic rule that frustrates
democracy and serves no useful purpose.

Gee, now I'm starting to think this filibuster thingie might not be so good.  I kindof get confused as to which principled stand by the NY Times I should get behind.

My Plan

First, recognize that I am not a lawyer, nor a constitutional scholar, nor do I play one on TV.  But seeing as the "experts" are tripping over themselves in their hypocrisy, there is not reason I can't jump in the fray too.

My idea for this started when I found out something about filibuster rules -- there are already certain votes that by Senate rules have been made immune to filibuster.  Thank God for blogs, because you won't find this anywhere in the MSM, though its apparently common knowledge.  Everyone treats a change in filibuster rules for judge confirmations as "a break in the dam" or a "slippery slope" which will wipe out the entire filibuster rule.   However, such exceptions have already been made.  The most used one is for budget votes - neither party may filibuster certain budget votes.  The logic for this is obvious - no one want to let 41 people shut down the government.  The majority party should be able to pass their budget.  This exemption is why Senate leaders often bury controversial provisions (recent example:  ANWR drilling) in the budget -- so they can't get filibustered.  Other votes exempt from filibuster include votes under the War Power Act and a number of really trivial things that I can't remember right now - I am looking for a link and would appreciate help.

This leads me to what seems like a fairly obvious, moderately principled position on filibuster:  Change the Senate rules to allow filibuster on new legislation, but exempt votes from filibuster that are required to keep the basic functions of government running.  This latter exempt category would include things like approving budgets, raising the debt ceiling, and voting on nominees of all types.

Postscript:  By the way, as a libertarian, I am generally all for seeing the government shut down, and don't shed many tears when the Senate does nothing.  However, I think my proposal is pretty true to the intentions of the Constitution.  In particular, of all the functions that are currently being shut down by the filibuster, it is galling that it is the court system that is being ground to a halt, since the courts are one of the few institutions where even a hard core libertarian like myself accepts a strong role for government.  Which is not to say that I am happy with the power courts and judges have been taking on themselves of late.

Update:  Here is a further good proposal that I am not sure why no one is talking about - if they are going to filibuster, lets make them actually filibuster, i.e. keep talking and talking:

  However, I think that these Princeton students have the right idea:  If you are going to filibuster, then you should have to filibuster.
Filibusters should come at some personal and political cost. We should
abolish the candy-ass filibusters of modern times, and require that if
debate is not closed it must therefore happen. 

The
prospect of John Kerry, Hillary Clinton or Ted Kennedy bloviating for
hours on C-SPAN would deter filibusters except when the stakes are
dire, if for no other reason than the risk that long debate would
create a huge amount of fodder for negative advertising. If Frist were
to enact the "reform" of the filibuster instead of its repeal, he would
sieze the high ground. He could take the position that the Republicans
are merely rolling back the "worst excesses" of the long period of
Democratic majority in the Congress, and that filibusters will still be
possible if Senators are willing to lay it all on the line. Indeed,
even the students at Princeton would be hard-pressed to argue against
such a reform of the filibuster, since extended speechifying is
precisely the means they have used to make their point.

I have never been bothered by the trade deficit.  Concern over the trade deficit always seems to be a holdover of 18th century mercantile thinking.  The key failure seems to be thinking of wealth as static or zero sum.  In a zero sum world, running a consistent trade deficit might indeed pour all of a countries wealth overseas like a tank springing a leak.

Wealth, of course, is not zero sum.  New ideas, productivity, technology create wealth.  Ever year, the US creates tremendous amounts of new wealth.  If we spend some of it overseas, so what?   

Often, problems like the deficit that seem problematic at a macro level fall apart when studied as part of individual behavior.  Cafe Hayek takes this approach in a nice post on why not to panic about the deficit:

If my paying my Virginia neighbor $10 to mow my lawn creates neither
debt nor other economic problems, how would my paying a Canadian $10US
to mow my lawn create debt or other economic problems? What conceivable
economic difference can the latitude or longitude of the seller's
residence make?

UPDATE: I always felt this same way, from Steve Landsburg:

I hold this truth
to be self-evident: It is just plain ugly to care more about total
strangers in Detroit than about total strangers in Juarez. Of course we
care most about the people closest to us-our families more than our
friends and our friends more than our acquaintances. But once you start
talking about total strangers, they all ought to be on pretty much the
same footing. You could say you care more about white strangers than
black strangers because you've got more in common with whites. Does
that make it okay to punish firms for hiring blacks?....

Stealing assets is wrong, and so is stealing the right to earn a living, no matter where the victim was born.

I have written a number of times about how I hate public funding of sports stadiums for billionaires.  But, via the Arizona Republic, this is perhaps worse:

Mired in debt, the Insight Bowl is considering leaving downtown Phoenix's Bank One Ballpark unless the postseason college football game receives a public subsidy.

Great - using tax money to fund random college bowl games.  And where does the money go - most of the money does to the participant teams and their conferences which this year are Notre Dame and Oregon State.  Why does Arizona need to subsidize the State of Oregon's athletic programs.  And Notre Dame?  They have one of the largest endowments in the country.  Neither of these teams have any connection to Phoenix or Arizona.

OK, I am being purposefully naive.  The money may go directly to the teams, but the purpose of the subsidy is to get those teams' fans to come to Arizona on the week between Christmas and New Years and buy hotel rooms.  In fact, it is an indirect subsidy of the lodging industry.

Why does the lodging industry have so much power in Phoenix?  People come here anyway, because it is warm - our climate is the best advertising.  And during the week between Christmas and New Years all the hotels are probably full anyway - certainly their rates are the highest of the year, as I have found when family have come to town that week.  And don't even get me started on tax money for this.

If the lodging industry values this stuff, let them pay for it via one of their trade groups.  The city of Phoenix does not advertise my business.  In fact, it does not advertise most of the businesses in town.  Why is lodging the exception?

This is the third (and hopefully last) installment of a series of posts on how I went about buying my current business. You should also refer to part 1 and part 2. This installment will focus on options for financing the purchase of a small company and what kinds of legal documents you will need to complete the transaction.

Continue reading ‘Buying a Company, Part 3’ »