Of bankers and boring: Sources of Canadian pride

There is quite a list that Canadian rightly feel proud about such as having better beer than the Americans; adding colour to color and bestowing honour to honor with the extra “u”; and saying the last letter in the alphabet the way the Queen wants us too.

Now we can add one more thing we Canadians will brag about endlessly… having notoriously boring (but solvent) banks.

We are in a new era indeed when bankers become a source of national pride!

What Toronto can teach New York and London

Good and Boring

Tax I can sign up for...

Not only do I hope a gas tax is no longer unthinkable, I also hope it is inevitable. Given all the pressures facing the US national balance sheet, and the failure of Copenhagen, it is really one of the few win-win solutions out there.



I think economists, even the likes of Greg Mankiw would agree.

Rupert, you're right about the media!

OK, if this isn't one of the horsemen of the apocalypse, I don't know what is but yes, on one point, I actually whole-heartedly agree with Rupert Murdoch.

Here is the apocalyptic point:

The key to survival, he said, lies in giving consumers content that they want in the form that they want it — whether that be on a computer screen, mobile device or e-reader — and then charging for it.

"We need to do a better job of persuading consumers that high-quality, reliable news and information does not come free," Murdoch said. "Good journalism is an expensive commodity."

Right! Give people the quality they want, in a form they want it in, at a reasonable price, paid for in a convenient way.

It's worked for other forms of entertainment and while this isn't the silver bullet to save journalism, but it is a good start.

Generating quality journalism is a difficult process and deserves to be paid for. If we're willing to pay 99 cents for a pop tune, we should be willing to pay a similar amount to maintain one of the key pillars to civil society.


Murdoch: Media must get readers to pay for online

Venture capital in America: The brightest and the rest | The Economist

Few thoughts here based on the Economist story:

Is it really “Too much money has been chasing too few great start-ups” as written in the subhead or is the problem as indicated further down the story“…much of the money has ended up in me-too companies that will not become the shining stars venture funds so badly need. All that cash has also inflated valuations of fledgling businesses, making it harder for VC funds to turn a profit on them.”

To modify the sub-head, I’m inclined to think that it is too much money chasing the same types of companies; everyone simultaneously going after Web 2.0, cleantech or whatever is sexy at the time. Potentially great companies that are not a flavor-du-jour are left behind while Paris Hilton companies (trendy but vapid) are actively sought after. (Is she still trendy… I’m so out of touch!)

Also, this is focused on the US. I think there are great VC opportunities abroad. The challenge here (as highlighted before) isn’t the lack of money or the lack of good business ideas, it is the lack of highly experienced VCs who can play the mentoring role to help local entrepreneur with great technologies build great companies.


Venture capital in America: The brightest and the rest | The Economist

China's Super-Sovereign Reserve Currency Idea: Could the SDR Be a Reserve Currency?

China's Super-Sovereign Reserve Currency Idea: Could the SDR Be a Reserve Currency?

This I think is one of the more interesting thoughts on China's push to SDR's as reserve currency:

"Foley: In the short term the costs to the US of losing its role as the reserve currency would be significant as it would lose seignorage benefits and ability to borrow in its own currency. In the longer term, the U.S. would benefit as it would regain some control over its currency. A central currency would make it harder for one country to get into so much debt to another. If the currency was increased along with global GDP it could provide a steady store of value."

Although bitter medicine, the US dollar losing its place as the global reserve currency could actually benefit the US economy in the long-term because it would force the US to lessen its reliance on debt and increase its savings.

Yes, that would cut consumption and lower growth rates, but the growth that does occur will be more stable and sustainable.

Saving grace of slow money

With all the money being pumped into the economy from the Feds, Tom Campbell says we may be looking down the wrong end of 13% inflation in about a year, as soon as the velocity of money picks up.

Paul Krugman says “don’t worry be happy”, inflation is econo-imaginary boogeyman and a bit of inflation will pint-size the debt, anyway.

The story here is why I think the answer will lie somewhere in the middle. If there is one fundamental change that we may be facing is that Americans may begin to save more. Not Asia type of savings, but more than in the recent past. If inflation creeps up, Bernanke and co will have to jack up interest rates which will also create and incentive for increased savings.

So jacked up interest rates and increase in savings may both contribute to lessening the return of high-velocity dollars, which may in turn dampen inflation so it’ll just be high, rather than very high.

Money quote:
With income growth far outpacing spending, Americans' personal savings rate zoomed to 5.7 percent, the highest since February 1995, the Commerce Department reported Monday.

Conceding risk capital in Canada

Another story about a Canadian researcher being lost to the US due to budget cuts.

This shouldn't be dismissed as another example of Canada's "brain drain." Sure, Canada and many other countries will always lose talent to the US because it is a bigger market, more things are happening, and there will always be more opportunity.

But there is no reason why this trend should be exacerbated by budget cuts. Quite the opposite, money should be spent in order to stem this tide as much as possible. This isn’t a cost, it is an investment in the future (yes, I know this is clichéd)

There are two clear negative repercussions to losing R&D talent:

1) It will be more difficult to attract foreign investment, especially VC money, to fuel innovative industries. People invest risk capital in countries where they see new products and services being developed. A leading indicator for this is the relative health of the local R&D community. A non-existent community means no innovations, which mean no outside risk capital coming into Canada.

2) It threatens Canada's future as a hub for innovation. If Canada wants to diversify its economy away from just commodities, then it needs to make this sort of long term investments. The hope of Canada becoming a center for any sort of innovation will be dimmed without active R&D investing, which will lead to the commercialization of products and the creation of industries later down the line.

What is the point of creating an "urban paradise" if no one is around to enjoy it?

"As the auto industry goes...

... so goes the US economy."

At least according to the old saying.



Geez, I hope not!

Our Great Economic U-Turn - WSJ.com

Surprising words from the WSJ. A pro-labor plea is not what I usually expect to read in their pages (or on the website.)

Growing income inequality, rising inflation, the credit crisis, an unregulated financial system that seems to have run amok all play into what seems to me to be a sea-change in society's general take on government and regulation.

It feels to me that we're going through a generational change, similar to the one that occurred in the 1980s. Society will be demanding more from government and while huge, bloated bureaucracies will (hopefully) remain out of style (although we still seem to have them IMHO), society in general will demand govt. to be more pro-active in addressing problems. I don't view this as "anti-market" per se, but a realization that the market cannot solve all problems and that markets by their very nature (profit-maximizing) need to be contained in some ways so they can operate for the benefit of society.

The change is happening, regardless of who wins the presidential race in Nov. The only difference Nov. will make is the degree of change.

Our Great Economic U-Turn - WSJ.com

Thoughts on deficit drop

Some quick thoughts on whythe drop in the US trade deficit.

Low dollar means foreign goods are more expensive here, so demand drops. Low dollar also means the US goods are cheaper elsewhere so demand abroad increases. This may be fine while it lasts, but a low currency is not what I would call a sustainable competitive advantage for the US.

The positive side to this, however, is that exports could help lessen the impact of a recession. Recovery could very well be export-lead.

Low confidence could mean that consumers are spending less, that would worsen the impact of any recession. On the plus side, however, if consumers are spending less, that could mean that they are (hopefully) saving more.

If that becomes sustained, that would be a huge plus because it would keep permanent downward pressure on the trade deficit, could boost liquidity without excessive interest rate cuts, and in the long run will make the individual financial situation of US consumers more stable, especially in their retirement.

What retails sales really look like

Scroll to the bottom of this post to see what retail sales really look like.

Yesterday, there was a lot of excitmenet about retail sales actually ticking up.

But it seems that if you factor in inflation (ie: nominal sales numbers looking good not because there was more valume of sales, but because prices were higher), retail sales were negative.

Canadians: Think Globally, Act Locally

I've been reading a lot recently about how culture and general timidity have prevented leading Canadian companies from expanding globally.

The flip-side seems to be a lack of Canadians willing to invest locally.

It seems VC money is flowing in Canada, but it is from foreign sources. Now, I have no problems with the global flow of capital, in fact, I actively support that. A country such as Canada should be welcoming of VC money from the US and elsewhere. But here's the money quote:

So while the news of VC investments is good, "we need strong Canadian investors if we want strong Canadian companies," says Rick Nathan, president, CVCA and managing director of Kensington Capital Partners.

So true.

Here's the real threat to US competitiveness

If you're really worried about US competitiveness, you should be more concerned about drops in research than about globalization.

Will America export its advantage?... oh get over it.....

Based on a story in the NYT on US colleges opening campuses abroad, the Managing Globalization blog askswill America export its advantage? (see blog post for link to NYT story.

I know the question is rhetorical, but it does seem a little basic. Yes, higher education in the US is one of the most coveted prizes in the world, but opening up campuses abroad is not a wholesale exportation of that prize.

First off, these foreign campuses would mainly be lecture institute rather than research institutes. A main source of US competitive advantage is the research that is generated within its boarders

These foreign campuses also provide an incredible learning experience for US students. The marketplace is global and attending school abroad is a great way for students to learn about that.

The focus of the NYT piece is on Gulf countries. US colleges in the Gulf countries play several beneficial roles there. The colleges promote cross-cultural dialog and help lay the foundation for oil-reliant countries to diversify their economies. The most dangerous state is a failed one. By helping states diversify their economies and become more stable, foreign colleges play an important role in promoting stability.

I could go on but I'll end on this final thought; the basis of US competitive advantage is multi-faceted. This is not to say that this allows the US to be complacent about protecting its competitive advantage, far from it. But it is difficult to point to one element of that competitive advantage and say if the US shares that, then all is lost.

OK fine! Financials do matter...

So here I made the argument that the farther you go from the financial sector, the less of an impact you're feeling from the current recess...ummm... downturn.

Well, despite my efforts to pigeonhole the financial sector, it seems it is really important! At least, according to the newly reformulated DJI. Big oil has been added as well, so I guess that industry is also pretty important.

This news, coupled with manufacturing taking a bit of a back seat on the DJI (Honeywell got booted off) illustrates the direction the US economy is going. Making stuff is out, powering stuff and financing stuff is in.

Recession to be longer than usual: UMich | U.S. | Reuters

Recession to be longer than usual: UMich | U.S. | Reuters

Here's a quote:
Paradoxically, worsening economic conditions will induce families to save money, reinforcing the drag on an economy that has become largely reliant on consumer spending.

True, but increasing US savings would also reduce the trade deficit and would also help shore up the dollar. Increased savings may also do more to boost lending than the current reduction in the interest rates. Increased savings would keep more money in the US system and mitigate the necessity for aggressive monetary policy.

I'm also guessing that consumers with more savings in their accounts would also be a lower credit risk, making them more attractive to banks.

And finally, increased (and sustained) savings in the US means there won't be a generation of pensioners in about 20-40 year without enough money to live off of.

I'm not begging to a long and deep recession, but if it hurts enough to in some ways impact the mentality of the current generation and encourage them to save more, borrow less and spend within their means, then the current period of pain will be worth it in the long term.

And oh yeah… what would a post be without my obligatory warning on inflation (which increased savings would also help mitigate.)

Inflation pressures will linger despite the retrenchment in consumer spending, complicating the task of policy-makers, the University's Richard Curtin said in a report, citing data from industry group The Conference Board.

Buffett: Bank woes are poetic justice | U.S. | Reuters

'nuff said.

Buffett: Bank woes are poetic justice | U.S. | Reuters

In praise of decoupling

A kindler, gentler look at decoupling but I remain unconvinced.

Basically there are two huge drivers to global growth right now, US and China, both are at the center of an ecosystem of other economies feeding into them.

And here's the kicker, China relies on the US.

Here's the money quote:

Diversification will only go so far, however, particularly if US consumption nosedives, says Mr Sheard. “Asia, centred on China, has become even more interlinked into the global economy, the driving impetus of which has been the US,” he said. It is hard to be global and decoupled at the same time.

Market’s Wild Ride Ends With Dow at 15-Month Low - New York Times

My new phrase of the day: "American contagion".

I think US/global decoupling was a nice theory, but clearly it doesn't hold. When you think about it, it is also counter-intuitive... in a globalized market all economies are being increasingly "coupled", right?

Market’s Wild Ride Ends With Dow at 15-Month Low - New York Times

World stocks routed on fears for economy - Yahoo! News

"Risk aversion is widespread as the market thinks (the economic downturn) is not just a U.S. centric story," said Paul Robson, currency strategist at RBS Global Banking.


oh well... so much for the oft told theory of the "decoupling" of the world economy and the US economy.



World stocks routed on fears for economy - Yahoo! News