|
The largest financial bailout in United States history, which some traders
are starting to call the 'Securitized Housing Investment Trust' (hint: think
acronym), is causing an existential crisis amongst those who hold to purest
free market ideology. Senator Jim Bunning, Republican of Kentucky, echoed this
sentiment when he said, "The free market for all intents and purposes is dead
in America." These ideologues doth protest too much, methinks.
Since the 1929 crash, the last time the nation faced an economic train-wreck
of this magnitude, the U.S. Government has effectively been in the insurance
business and it has generally served us well. The vast majority of laws and
regulations are designed to mitigate risk. Drunk driving laws minimize the
number of car wrecks, and the short uptick rule (until recently eliminated)
prevented unfettered short-selling from forcing solvent companies into insolvency.
Government institutions enforce these policies. What is the purpose of the
military but insurance against an attack from other nations? What is the key
purpose of a central bank other than insurance against a run on banks?
In fact, the present-day capital market system, which has been responsible
for raising living standards to the highest in world history, relies upon laws
and regulations: the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, the Commodity Exchange Act of 1936, and the Investment Advisers Act of
1940. Although not perfect (and definitely requiring an overhaul), these laws
have served Wall Street and LaSalle Street very well over time.
The problem with fundamentalist free market ideology is that it is only theoretical,
and ultimately not pragmatic. Truth is, without government establishing the
premise of private property enforced through law and justice, contract markets
would soon devolve and be quickly replaced by gangster capitalism akin to Putin's
Russia. There is a term for the unfettered combination of concentrated power,
ideological adherence and capitalistic greed, it is called "fascism."
There is another term "beta," which defines the systematic return/risk of
assets. This concept is related to Modern Portfolio Theory and underlies the
oft-stated investment strategy of buy-and-hold. What is not well-understood,
even by many sophisticated investors, is that this theory is flawed. The issue
is benchmark portfolio construction. Accordingly, the definition of "true beta" or "true
market portfolio" must be extended to encompass other economic factors.
What academics came to recognize was that approximately one-third of non-governmental
tangible assets in the U.S. are owned by the corporate sector, and only one-third
of these corporate assets are financed by equity. As a result, Jagannathan
and Wang concluded that assumptions underlying the concept of beta must be
altered in order to resolve anomalies in the model. In other words, "true beta" or
the "true market portfolio" must include the "aggregate wealth portfolio of
all agents in the economy." This is a revolutionary view with both political
and economic ramifications.
Business balance sheets do not in practice reflect public infrastructure assets
which businesses are dependent on. For example, a trucking company's greatest
asset is not its fleet of trucks, but the U.S. Highway system. Likewise, public
liabilities such as the cost of pollution are also not reflected on corporate
balance sheets. This is beginning to change with the idea of integrating regulations
into "cap-and-trade" contract markets involving emission allowances.
It is time for a new economic ideology to take hold which adheres to a progressive
view. Government and free enterprise are actually joint partners in promoting
economic growth and well-being. Certainly, political will effects a constant
tug-of-war between interests, but this is not unlike the struggle between a
sales-trading desk which drive revenues for an investment bank, and internal
compliance/risk managers who ensure balance between risk and reward.
The problem with the prevalent populist stream of conversation regarding free
markets versus socialism is that such dialogue is anachronistic. Rather, the
conversation needs to shift to good versus bad governance, and public policy
which enhances the value of the aggregate wealth portfolio of all agents in
the economy.
|