The boys in the bubble

Thursday, September 24th, 2009 Hang Seng: -2.52%
Starbucks cafe, Zurich. One of the few places with clean air.

What a year so far!

Most indices have gained about 50% since March, and although sometimes we're running out of steam, the bull trend seems to continue, if less steeper.

Statistically, this is an interesting phenomenon. Profits like this occur about 0.5 % of the time in any 6 months period. To be more precise, the only time a rally of this magnitude happened before, in historical perspective, was in 1932-1933.

Now for completeness sake, there's been some talk of an upcoming correction, and certainly for some investors vertigo has set in. And recently I picked up the word bubble in the corridors of the human warehouse I work in, and someone with an utterly sick sense of humour described as an office, probably to get a building permit.

But back to the markets: what do we mean by a bubble?

In the financial world, many definitions are about but for want of a really good one, I prefer to go by a description who I partly nicked from a guy called Charles Kinderberger when he wasn't watching, and then edited it just enough for plagiarism to be ruled out.

The first stage is an event that causes (and, at prima facie, justifies) an increase in prices. Mostly, but not necessarily always equity. Think of the explosion of new technology that caused the dot.com (later: dot.gone) an oil boycott that sent prices per barrel through the roof in the seventies and, more recently, apparent spreading of the risk that caused the number of sub-prime house buyers to spin out of control.

In our case, this would simply be the re-bound of the near-collapse of the financial system, nothing more, and certainly nothing less.

The second phase is the cascade of easy credit that is pouring over your heads.
(Remember: "are you a home owner...?")

This would seem unlikely at the moment. But remember: the governments made credit easily available for banks, with the intention to pass some of it on to their clients. The banks don't do this, and park it somewhere safe instead, but that is besides the point now. It's there, just not for those who want it.

Then comes the hype.
Of course, after March we were all desperate to hear some good news. And for six months we have had plenty of it. The dynamics of the markets are mysterious, and sometimes it only takes one good news story to initiate a rally, just as a panic reactions sometimes can constitute a bear market in itself. And we so want to believe that all will be fine again.

Players on the sideline are now finally convinced that the worst is over and jump on the bandwagon. There's no stopping it now: we reached the next phase at full speed: euphoria.
After which comes the final stage: the crash.

I'm not sure if we're in a bubble now. If we are, then please realise two important facts about a bubble:

One. Every expert will tell you it's best avoided.
Two. At the same time, they spot the opportunity for short term gains, and think that they're smarter than the rest and pick the peak.

Now, of course, if we all think that, we might very well be in euphoria now.

Good mourning

Thursday, Aug 6th, 2009 Euronext 100: +0.79%
On the sunlounger on my terrace, with some sangria


Every now and again when someone dies, it makes you stop in your stride for a moment and think.

Not all the time of course. In general, as somebody once said, "death is a boring, dull affair and I want nothing whatsoever to do with it." Its a built-in defence mechanism that we don t think too much about other people's death, for the sheer reason you would go barmy. But when I was in Tokyo last week to have a drink with a friend and visit an art exhibition, I must admit I pondered over the sudden death of this one, much admired person who changed and, indeed, improved the quality of so many peoples lives and, although famous for it the world over, had been a bit in the background lately. Probably because not everyone realised what courage and determination it takes to reach that level where you can actually do something. Make a difference.

I'm talking, of course, about Corazon Aquino, the first female president of the Philippinnes, and in fact of any Asian country, who died last week of cancer at the age of 76.

Cory, as she had become popularly known, was educated in the Philippines and the USA and held many titles, amongst which doctor at law. Her passion and pursuit for justice and democracy drove her to run for president herself when, upon returning to the Philippines, her husband, Begigno Aquino, was assasinated when he stepped off the plane on Manila Airport.

The politically unexperienced mother of four unseated the corrupt dictator Ferdinand Marcos in the election to follow, and held the reigns of one of the most volatile nations in the far East for a considerable amount of time, returning the country to democracy.

According to Mrs Aquino, Marcos had been the "first male chauvinist to under-estimate her." So it would appear.

In the years to come, she successfully fought off four ferocious attempts by people from her own government to replace her. And all this without resorting to oppresion or violence.

"As I came to power peacefully, so shall I keep it", became one of her famous quotes.

Some of her other famous quotations were:
"One must be frank to be relevant."
"The media's power is frail. Without the people's support, it can be shut off with the ease of turning a light switch. "
And, finally, "I would rather die a meaningful death than to live a meaningless life."

How very true. Mrs Aquino, who consciously refused medical treatment at the end of her battle with colon cancer, certainly did live a meaningful life, as she improved circumstances of many of her subjects, and set the directions for a future political path for her country.

But talking of a meaningful death, someone else died recently too.

I was not surprised by this one though. To be honest, he did look a bit pale for the last, say, twenty years. And when he had to wear gloves when he swang his baby over the balcony of his room in that Berlin hotel, I just had a feeling there's something not quite healthy about this character.

Still, I think his death was hardly a coincidence. After his Thriller album he never really did anything spectacular and became a loss-making liability for his PR people. But hardly dead for some weeks, and - hey, presto - seven singles in the charts at once! The coffin's rocking!

What gives food for thought is some of the comments his fans uttered. "He'll be singing in heaven with the angels", a girl of about twelve muttered in tears.

Now there's a relief.

This guy, whose contribution to mankind consisted of a few silly steps taken backwards, had been abusing children. I mean, if he goes to heaven, we'll all go!
I might even qualify for an upgrade, come to think of it!

Some people's existence just functions as an example for others, either way. While this was true for both Cory and Michael, I somehow doubt they would get along in an afterlife.

Democracy done over

Friday, June the 5th, 2009 Nasdaq: -0.14%
Vapiano - Zurich



Piers Morgan - judge on "Britain's got Talent"

Let's talk telly.

With apologies to the younger readers, who admittedly I don't have many of since this blog doesn't use text language, I briefly need to go back to the previous century, if only as an intro.

In the eighties, the political satirical sitcom "Yes, minister" and its sequel "Yes, Prime Minister" became some of the best rated series ever. What was particularly interesting was the role of upper mandarin Sir Humphrey Appleby, a superb performance by Nigel Hawthorne. Sir Humphrey demonstrated what many people already knew: it's the civil service that runs the country, not the ministers, in spite of their sometimes well meant efforts. With the help of inter-departmental enquiries, sub-committees and other delaying tactics, Sir Humphrey made absolutely sure that all new initiatives were not instantly killed, but rather slowly strangled. It was he, and not the prime-minister, who had the power.

All this was presented with hilarious humour and superb dialogue which we all enjoyed. But one thing Sir Humphrey said stuck in my mind: "government is not about democracy, it's about stability."
Sadly, I think he had a point there.

In the nineties then, Britain's most famous prime minister was a fictional character called Francis Urquhart, played by Ian Richardson in the series House of Cards, To Play the King and the Final Cut. The series scored moderately in the UK, but became hugely popular on the continent, to every one's surprise, not in the least that of it's makers. The self-made, de-facto dictator caused his own demise by going too far and killing one too many in his efforts to keep his absolute power.

Francis Urquhart launched some well known catchphrases too: "Nothing lasts forever", "People like a strong leader, someone to put a stick about" and, perhaps most famous of all: "You might think that... I couldn't possibly comment." He always winked when he said that:)

Again, the entire thing concentrated on power and it's glorification.

Speaking of Absolute Power, the more recent series with the same name featuring Stephen Fry and John Bird as the spin doctors Charles Prentiss and Martin McCabe were top of the bill in terms of modern PR combined with reality views on politics. The title was derived from the quote: "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". The PR agency Prentiss McCabe worked mainly, though not exclusively, for the UK government.

There was absolutely nothing nice about Charles Prentiss. An arrogant, autocratic bastard of the first water, who's success in his job was only surpassed by the regime of utter rudeness he exercised towards his staff. When, in the series, he was being asked whether he watches "Spooks", Charles Prentiss responded: "Television is not for watching, it's for being on!" Arrogance at large.

Have you discovered the common denominator? Correct. Abuse of power, if played by talented actors, can be turned into a huge commercial success. Rudeness will be ratified, arrogance applauded.

And not much has changed. Just the programs that are getting even more mainstream.
For instead of having at least the intellectual ping-pong (or whiff-whaff as Boris Johnson calls it) as consolation for the more profound message in aforementioned series, we now have to make do with Celebrity Big Brother, the Apprentice and Britain's got talent. But the result is the same: everyone enjoys it most when Piers Morgan tells someone he's really crap and can he please get off the stage - thank you very much.

Let's talk numbers.

Numbers allow us to measure, both snapshots and trends. It's the latter here that become important.

In 1960 the American election that voted John F. Kennedy into the White House, around 60 Million Americans turned up. Thirty-odd years later, when George Bush was elected president, the number had increased with over 50% to 96 Million. Given the increase in population eligible to vote, this is hardly an achievement. Currently the turnout rates are going down in almost any election.

But a show like American Idol gets in one season - wait for it! - 500 Million votes by telephone. And that's not a misprint!

Are people tired of our politicians? Can't imagine it. The real leaders are no worse than the BBC's fictional crooks. Tony Blair's weapons of mass deception story plunged the country into a war, Berlusconi continues to screw the country (literally, as it would appear) and Gordon's Boys are helping themselves to a bit of expenses. No, on the power front it's all tickety boo.

So here's a thought. Organise the next election with a phone-in service. First have some candidates summarise their manifestos while Piers buzzes them off the moment he thinks it's bollocks. Then have the public call in. As an extra incentive, reverse the price of a call, and reward people for voting. Done with the queues for the polling stations, and up go the ITV ratings!

Because if one thing has become very clear, it's that sensation shows are very much alive, while the concept of responsible democracy is currently in a deep coma. And it doesn't look like it will revive any time soon.

Unless we get Simon Cowell to give it a makeover, of course.

Beyond Basel

Friday, April the 17th, 2009. CAC 40: + 1.77%
At home with a nasty cough

Sir Fred Goodwin, former boss of RBS

It's been a while now since Basel came along.

Basel I and II, for those of us not initiated in the world of finance, are sets of rules and regulations, mainly applicable to banks that had to do with methodologies used to calculate risk. Operational risk, credit risk, and other types. I'll save you the details. They are as interesting as they are helpful. (Tick: "not" in both cases)

It meant quite a change. More specifically, a change in the amount we paid IT consultants with a halfway decent understanding of how banking works. For all this stuff had strict deadlines and, through their ginormous daily rates, at least their finances were secured for a while. Not so, however, the money placed in the accounts by John Doe.

It did not help. One thing Basel I and II did not do, is to maintain trust in the financial industry. Or in anything at all, for that matter.

Credits kept on rolling freely to those who had some collateral, and because credit was easily available, the market value of that collateral, often real estate, went up too, as more people could afford to buy. More value means more encouragement to make some of that liquid, and that completes the circle.

When somebody had the bright idea to package some second rate debts together and swap that against other, often equally questionable vehicles, banks, particularly investment banks, saw their chance to make their books look even more glorious.

Alas, when somebody started to call in those debts it triggered a chain reaction and everything went horribly wrong. Then came Northern Rock, Lehman Bros, RBS... The rest, as they say, is history.

Fortunately, the governments were prepared to bail out some of the major banks, to prevent a "total collapse of the economic system." Unfortunately, governments have no money and use the tax-payers', the same ones who already suffered and had just seen their savings and investment vaporised.

Don't think for a minute though that this solves the problem. On the contrary, look at what's being done with those large sums.

On the day that the UK government decided to bail out RBS, their CEO, Sir Fred Goodwin, contractually doubled his pension to £ 703.000 per year for the rest of his life. This, as compensation for leaving his post where he had exercised a management of misery and a policy of bullying.

His explanation: well, it's on paper. If the government is not careful with that they sign, how can he be held responsible?.

The sad thing is: he's right. He may be unethical, selfish or anti-social. It would be safe to say he's a nasty piece of work. But he's not wrong. Governments are, like the banks, utterly careless with their expenditure for one simple reason only: it is not their money!

I dare say we don't really need such big banks to keep the economy afloat. In Switzerland the only two really large banks lost enormously in 2008, albeit one considerably more than the other. But the reality is, people currently are taking their cash elsewhere, and more often than not this is to a local savings bank, who don't have an investment division. Not because they know so much about banking. Because they have learned. They learned not to believe and not to trust.

If anybody thinks that the problem will soon be solved by getting credit to flow again, think again. If anybody believes the cases of "boss-napping" in France were incidents that will blow over, keep dreaming.

The real problem is on a deeper level than regulating credit default swaps. It has to do with plausibility, with trust, having a vision. People don't need a cheaper mortgage. They need a solid house to live in, and the security that that house will still be there tomorrow. Just as they don't need bonuses either. Most people would prefer an employer who will invest in your happiness rather than cutting costs and award only those who devised yet another idea how to squeeze staff even more.

I suggest a new charter that would go beyond Basel I and II. Call it Basel III if you like, or Timbuktu or Wolverhampton for all I care. What matters is this:

It should not be about credit, that will start to flow again at some point. But it won't be enough. What is needed now is credibility.

Fix that, and we shall prosper!

Not all is gloom that dooms

Monday, March 16th, 2009. Hang Seng: + 3.60%
18.45 at Starbucks, laptop on lap.

Researchers at the ETH University managed to cure tumors in the lymph gland completely by developing anti-bodies, who are actually able to identify cancer cells and successfully eradicate them. An absolute first in medical science.

SBB, the Swiss railway operator, vowed to postpone the price increase it published earlier this year to 2010, due to the financial crisis. Unbelievable! A railway operator with a heart. It ticks punctually too.

It gets even better. The Swiss standards commission voted for a relaxation on the import rules that subjected consumer foods and drinks that freely retail in the EU to extreme additional test before they can be sold in Switzerland. So much so, that many importers and producers simply give up or never even start the process.
We, the expats in Zürich, look forward to see some more variety on the shelves!

The number of killings in Columbia was down to 44 per day in 2008, the lowest since 30 years.

Barclays and Citigroup reported a return to profitability. Santander, at no point making a loss in 2008 (did anyone else notice this?) expects a raise in profit for 2009.
And while most big banks and insurers saw their shares dropping, the Raiffeisen Group registered 158.000 new customers who brought some 11,6 billion CHF in savings with them. Before you get your calculator out, this amounts to an average of 73,417 CHF per customer.

For the first time in 2009, a brief moment of 20 degrees centigrade were reported last Saturday in Tessin.

Spring is in the air!

Finding my religion

Friday Feb 27th, 2009. Nikkei: + 2.21%

I had an interesting week reading all the reactions I received on my piece on "Slumdog millionaire." One of them called me an "ash-whole," another came up with "full-idiot." Interesting choice of words, that.

I must confess I had not informed the readers that all comments on this blog are deleted.
Nevertheless, I'm grateful for every opportunity to expand my vocabulary, so please keep writing in.

Speaking of confessions: I have another one. I have this week discovered Catholicism! Here's how this came about.

Every season has it's traditions and this time of the year there is carnival. Or rather: there isn't, as Zürich is not well known for its carnivalesque spirit. The kanton is protestant officially, and apart from one or two private and small-scale initiatives, carnival glides by as unnoticed as a float in the Nullabor desert.

Not so in Luzern, one hour to the south, for example, where the majority is catholic and carnival, or Fasching or Faschnacht, is celebrated in all its glory and people either have or take days off.

It's an interesting phenomenon which, unless you have been brought up with it, I suppose you can never really understand. I mean, I can see the appeal of going out, having fun, drink a bit too much and then sleep with whoever comes your way, but do you really need to plan this in committees for months in advance? And another thing: what's the point in wearing those silly masks? Do you keep them on during the adultery for fear of recognition?

I tried to get to the bottom of it in a discussion with an otherwise lovely German woman with whom I slept for a while even when there was no fancy dress party going on.
"You're someone else for a few days," she said. "That's what it's all about. And because you're someone else, you feel free to do things you wouldn't normally do. At least I wouldn't", she hastened to add in what I hope was an attempt to reassure me.

I got it. Because you put on a silly costume and look like, say, Bart Simpson or a hot dog, you can't be held responsible for your actions, since you obviously must have gone gaga. Makes sense. Or does it....?

It seems to do the trick for many people, as this festival of debauchery is widely scattered around the globe, and even appear to be in some sort of competition with one another. It's all about the most famous (Rio), the most colourful (New Orleans' Mardi Gras), the second most famous (Santa Cruz de Tenerife according to some, Venice according to others) and the most drunken one (Cologne or Dusseldorf, that's still undecided).

I noticed that all these places are predominantly catholic, but my friend claims that it is in fact a feast of pagans, which makes it all the more catholic, I suppose.

Because, having looked at various religions, I have now come to find out that Catholicism is the one that makes life most livable, since they seem to have two standards for almost anything.

Many true followers, for example, do not practice what their pope preaches, and openly declare not to agree with his statements, proclamations and, most of all, his interpretations of what is forbidden in the name of God. However, they almost never criticise the pope directly. Funny, that.

The other thing is the concept of heaven and hell, and even purgatory (a sort of premium-economy in the afterlife, as it were). Although in itself not unique, nor exclusively catholic, they go by the assumption that almost any sin can be forgiven, as long as you realise it and show remorse. This would theoretically allow Hitler, Khomeini, Bin Laden and Bush to still earn a reasonably comfy place in heaven, provided they realise the consequences of each and everyone of their actions. For some of the above mentioned characters, this may take a while for obvious reasons.

In summary, as in most other religions, the bottom line is: don't. But if you must, then confess as soon as possible afterwards. I find this rather practical.

In my next life, I'm going to be a Catholic. Until then, I'll just dress up as one.

Who wants to Boyle a millionaire?

Tuesday, February 10th, 2009 Dow Jones -4.6%
22.36

at my desk at home, with a glass of San Vincenzo

Slumdog millionaire - Jamal in the hot seat


What is it with us? Do we really need to see other people's misery to feel good?
The ghetto-buster "slumdog millionaire" scooped up seven Bafta awards last weekend.

For those who saw "Trainspotting", the film that catapulted director Danny Boyle into publicity, this is one more product that dives into the underbelly of a society and displays all the ingredients one would normally expect to find there in graphic detail.

Not much has changed. Misery, poverty and violence play the major parts while blood, shit and vomit are the all-important props. It's just that this time there's more of all that. Boyle is not just testing the boundaries of good taste anymore, he flattens them with a steamroller.
So why, we wonder, did this film get that many awards? I didn't know there was a category for most revolting filth, or sickening violence.

Is it because the film features
A) beautiful pictures B) a strong message
C) love story D) nothing new

Hum...difficult.
Let's consider a lifeline. Ask the audience, for example.
Given the time since it's release, not that many people have seen it.
I don't know the latest box office figures, but when I went to see it last weekend the cinema was half full. And even so, Baftas are not awarded because the audience has a say in it. There is obviously no relief here.

How about 50/50?
Computer, take away two wrong answers. Leave one remaining wrong answer and the correct one.

C) love story D) nothing new

That makes more sense, but it only confirmed what I suspected. Unless you consider Indian toilets, a cesspit or a rubbish belt very scenic, you'd have to agree there is precious little beauty in any of the scenes.

The message? Well, the story is about a boy who grows up in the slums, and one day becomes a participant in the Indian version of "Who wants to be a millionaire". Because he has a good memory and gets the right questions, he does well and is arrested and tortured by the police under suspicion of cheating. Rags to riches in jeopardy, but it all ends up well in the nick of time.
What is the message here?
Is the Indian police corrupt, protects the rich and does not respect human rights? Hardly surprising.
We are given a look behind the scene of the show and learn that the quiz show host is a nasty piece of work. Well, thank you very much. I'll tell Chris Tarrant you said that.

Phone a friend then. But who?
I have one or two friends who are into this misery - masochism. They go on and on about how I travel to Brazil and not see the "real" country, because I was never robbed in a favela or mugged by a gang of twelve year olds at gunpoint. Funny how I tend to avoid those experiences wherever I can and still enjoy my trips. They shake their heads in disbelief about so much naivety.

I, meanwhile, hang my head in shame and must confess that most of my friends are more into a good meal, a civilised conversation and pleasant company. I know, it's boring and I'm hopeless. So - no "phone a friend".

C) the love story - perhaps?

Jamal, the main character is in love with a girl and he pursues this love with an unequalled determination. The princess and the pauper. It is even more admirable when you realise she does not pursue this love actively and tells him more than once to bugger off because her situation is hopeless. Once though, she breaks away and tries to save him with the final question when it is his turn to phone a friend, but even then she does not know the answer. Basically, one half of the love is therefore utterly useless. On the flip side, she dances nicely in the Michael Jackson-like clip that precedes the closing credits.

Honestly, it can't be the love story.

So what do we have left? Many shots of valiant little beggars who's life, so the film tells us, is screwed up and when one of them has a chance to get out, he is met with suspicion, treachery and threats.
A picture of a police force you would not want to pay any tax for, but did you really think it is that much different over here? I dread to think about it.
A story that is flimsy and full of holes. For example, when Jamal is questioned by the police about him blurting out things, he states he just answers the truth as he knows it when someone asks him a question. In other words, it is suggested he is incapable of lying. This is in stark contrast with the way he cheats tourists who visit the Taj Mahal. And another thing. It would seem highly unlikely that someone who always speaks the truth would survive in the slums, where the law of the strongest rules in all ruthless fashions.

So a flimsy love story, an unlikely dream of rags to riches, and lots of violence and poverty to make us feel rich by comparison, if only for a brief moment.

D) nothing new
Final answer.