Archive for June 21st, 2016

A common central bank and finocracy tool to make one obey their orders : Fear Mongering

June 21, 2016

We were told all hells will break lose on Indian markets last Saturday. But nothing of this sort happened. It does not require a lot of economics education to realise that most investors do not have any other place to dump their money but India. But fears have to be raised as that is how central banks and its team of finocrats make us believe.

Tho Bishop has a piece on how central banks have been using the tool of fear mongering to push things their way: (more…)


From I pencil to I peach..

June 21, 2016

The moment we begin to think about the fact that how our daily things come to us through a myriad of producers and processes, we can only be amazed.

Pencil was one such product and now Robert Higgs wonders where his peach fruit comes from..


How interesting exchanges between Jack Treynor and Fischer Black shaped finance..

June 21, 2016

A superb piece by Perry Mehrling of INET.

He pays tribute to Jack Treynor, the forgotten man who helped shape much of finance theories as we know today. Treynor discussed  much of his ideas with Black and amidst all this the revolutionary idea of finance i.e pricing of options was taking place:

Jack has never been easy,” wrote Charles D. Ellis in 1981 as Jack stepped down from his position as editor of the Financial Analysts Journal which he had held since 1969. In Jack’s own departing words in the same issue of the FAJ, he described a “guerilla war” between black hats and white hats, whose “outcome is still in doubt”.

In retrospect, the years of Jack’s editorship more or less coincided with a most remarkable period in American history when what I have called the revolutionary idea of finance took hold and transformed financial institutions and financial practices utterly. Jack was in the middle of it all, pushing against the resistance of the Old Guard in his attempt to professionalize the job of financial analyst, but also pushing against the New Guard whose almost religious belief in market efficiency led them to disregard the importance of that very same job.

Here he is, in 1979, retrospectively characterizing the middle ground he was trying to occupy:

I believe in a third view of market efficiency, which holds that the securities market will not always be either quick or accurate in processing new information so that, contrary to the academic view of market efficiency, opportunities to trade profitably against the market consensus exist. According to this view, however, it is not easy to transform research advantage into superior portfolio performance. Unless the investor understands what really goes on in securities transactions, he can easily convert even superior research information into the kind of performance that will drive his clients to the poorhouse.

“Trading Cost and Active Investing”, eventually published in FAJ 1981 as “What Does it Take to Win the Trading Game?”

To help him keep his balance on that shifting middle ground, he brought onto the board of FAJ his friend Fischer Black, who himself would spend more or less the same crucial formative years hanging out in academia, first at the University of Chicago and then MIT. The result was a remarkably productive collaboration in which Treynor, taking advantage of his greater closeness to the world of practical experience, produced a series of “ideas in the rough” that Fischer then picked up, reworked, and smoothed out.

Useful discussion on history of financial thought which obviously is never taught. What matters more is how finance shapes society and not just trading profits:

The revolutionary idea of finance transformed the practice of finance, and in time it also transformed academic understanding of finance. Indeed, both transformations continue to this day; I tell all my students that financial globalization, and the resultant integration of money markets and capital markets, is the defining fact of our age. But I think there is another, even slower, transformation under way as well, a cultural transformation in how we think about risk and time in our own lives, both as individuals and as collectivities.

Treynor’s thoughts on how to trade profitably against the market consensus amount also to a kind of life philosophy, a way to confront what Keynes called “the dark forces of time and ignorance”. In the long run, more important than the transformation of financial institutions, or of academic theory, is the way that a changed understanding of risk and time allows people to live different kinds of lives, by freeing them from the superstition that guides action wherever science has yet to penetrate. And even more important is the way that a changed understanding of risk and time allows people to live different collective lives, by understanding better the larger society of which they are a part, and their place in it.

That cultural revolution is of course still very much unfinished business. Jack Treynor, by placing himself in the middle of the central transformational event of his generation, was a pioneer not only in the art of investment but also in the art of living.

Nice bit..

The office cubicle was invented by a Christian company…

June 21, 2016

Religion and economics or Religion and shaping of business practices is always a fascinating area of study.

Darren E. Grem has a piece on 7 things you may not know about conservative Christian businesses. He discusses the the culture and history of Christian business. I liked this bit on office cubicle culture:

7. The office cubicle was invented by a Christian company. The De Pree family, which headed the furniture company Herman Miller, interpreted their Dutch Reformed evangelicalism to mean the valuing of “high design” and better employer-employee relations through modular office furniture. Hence, they developed the “Action Office II,” a predecessor to the contemporary office cubicle, in the mid-1960s as a means to free employees from fixed-in-place desks.  (At the time, the Office Space-like, “cubicle drone” hellscape of the future was not their intent.) 

Though, I don’t think that this design to induce a better employee-employee relations came this late. While reading of business history of most good companies across the religion space, you come across this aspect of having flatter hierarchies. For instance, the early Indian companies (Hindu ones) too operated just on a gaddi (a mattress literally) where employer and employees sat across each other. Some of them continue the practice till date.

All these aspects of history are really exciting to look at…

%d bloggers like this: