Hypomaniacs and Venture Capital - a match made in heaven

Profile of an entrepreneur in NYTimes. Choice quote: "Academics and hiring consultants say that many successful entrepreneurs have qualities and quirks that, if poured into their psyches in greater ratios, would qualify as full-on mental illness."

Lewis does Greece

And the Michael Lewis world tour of financial disaster hotspots continues - he now finds himself in Greece, a country where government existed to hand out kickbacks to citizens and active non-enforcement of tax laws. In other words, the Nepal of Europe.

How The Senate (Not) Works

George Packer of the New Yorker outlines how the great deliberative body proceeds. The image is of dysfunction - arcane rules, paucity of any meaningful cooperations, or even engagement in debate.

String Theory - (no not that one ...)

Another transcendent piece from David Foster Wallace about tennis. A nice companion piece to his famous Federer article that made me pick up tennis again.

The Mankiw Trilemma

Excellent NYT article by Greg Mankiw on the choices nations face on monetary policy. They basically have a choice of picking two out of three.

1. Make the economy open to flows of currency
2. Use monetary policy to manage the economy
3. Maintain stability in the currency exchange rate

USA chooses 1 & 2. EU - 1 & 3. China - 2 & 3. Whenever one of these guys criticizes another, they are expecting the other to change over to their own policy choices.

Dealing with complexity in the financial systems

The Dodd bill that is going through congress - all 2000 pages of it - seem like a knee jerk reaction (with emphasis on Jerk). Legislation is not necessarily bad, but overly specific laws are useless, firms will just find ways of maneuvering around it. And as time goes by they become irrelevant.

The key learning from the crisis for me was that leverage is dynamite, and it makes no sense having that lying around institutions that are required for daily functioning of the economy. I have yet to hear that the bill that was passed does anything to bring back the leverage in the financial system back to historic norms.

Naseem Nicholas Taleb - aka NNT - just published a fine article on how to deal with catastrophic risks in the financial sytem. It is so good that I have to quote it in full - like any good article, it does not take well to summarization.

This should be required reading for any lawmaker.

----

After completing my book The Black Swan, I spent some time meditating on the fragility of systems with the illusion of stability. This convinced me that the banking system was the mother of all accidents waiting to happen. I explained in the book that the best teachers of wisdom are the eldest, because they may have picked up invisible tricks that are absent from our epistemic routines and which help them survive in a world more complex than the one we think we understand. So being old implies a higher degree of resistance to "Black Swans" (events with the following three attributes: they lie outside the realm of regular expectations; they carry an extreme impact; and human nature makes us concoct explanations for their occurrence after the fact).

Take Mother Nature, which is clearly a complex system, with webs of interdependence, non-linearities and a robust ecology (otherwise it would have blown up a long time ago). It is a very old person with an impeccable memory. Mother Nature does not develop Alz heimer's - and there is evidence that even humans would not easily lose brain functions with age if they took long walks, avoided sugar, bread, white rice and stock-market investments, and refrained from taking economics classes or reading the New York Times.

Let me summarise my ideas of how Mother Nature deals with the Black Swan. First, she likes redundancies. Look at the human body. We have two eyes, two lungs, two kidneys, even two brains (with the possible exception of company executives) - and each has more capacity than is needed ordinarily. So redundan cy equals insurance, and the apparent inefficiencies are associated with the costs of maintain ing these spare parts and the energy needed to keep them around in spite of their idleness.

The exact opposite of redundancy is naive optimisation. The reason I tell people to avoid attending an (orthodox) economics class and argue that economics will fail us is the following: economics is largely based on notions of naive optimisation, mathematised (poorly) by Paul Samuelson - and these mathematics have contributed massively to the construction of an error-prone society. An economist would find it inefficient to carry two lungs and two kidneys - consider the costs involved in transporting these heavy items across the savannah. Such optimisation would, eventually, kill you, after the first accident, the first "outlier". Also, consider that if we gave Mother Nature to economists, it would dispense with individual kidneys - since we do not need them all the time, it would be more "efficient" if we sold ours and used a central kidney on a time-share basis. You could also lend your eyes at night, since you do not need them to dream.

Almost every major idea in conventional economics fails under the modification of some assumption, or what is called "perturbation", where you change one parameter or take a parameter henceforth assumed to be fixed and stable by the theory, and make it random. Take the notion of comparative advantage, supposedly discovered by David Ricardo, and which has oiled the wheels of globalisation. The idea is that countries should focus on "what they do best". So one country should specialise in wine, another in clothes, even though one of them might be better at both. But consider what would happen to the country if the price of wine fluctuated. A simple perturbation around this assumption leads one to reach the opposite conclusion to Ricardo. Mother Nature does not like overspecialisation, as it limits evolution and weakens the animals.

This explains why I found the current ideas on globalisation (such as those promoted by the journalist Thomas Friedman) too naive, and too dangerous for society - unless one takes into account the side effects. Globalisation might give the appearance of efficiency, but the operating leverage and the degrees of interaction between parts will cause small cracks in one spot to percolate through the entire system.

The debt taboo
The same idea applies to debt: it makes you very fragile under perturbations. We currently learn in business schools to engage in borrowing, against all historical traditions (all Mediterranean cultures developed over time a dogma against debt). "Felix qui nihil debet", goes the Roman proverb: "Happy is he who owes nothing." Grandmothers who survived the Great Depression would have advised doing the exact opposite of getting into debt: have several years of income in cash before any personal risk-taking. Had the banks done the same, and kept high cash reserves while taking more aggressive risks with a smaller portion of their port folios, there would have been no crisis.

Documents dating back to the Babylonians show the ills of debt, and Near Eastern religions banned it. This tells me that one of the purposes of religious traditions has been to enforce prohibitions to protect people against their own epistemic arrogance. Why? Debt implies a strong statement about the future, and a high degree of reliance on forecasts. If you borrow $100 and invest in a project, you still owe $100 even if you fail in the project (but you do a lot better in case you succeed). So debt is dangerous if you are overconfident about the future and are Black Swan-blind - which we all tend to be. And forecasting is harmful since people (especially governments) borrow in response to a forecast (or use the forecast as a cognitive excuse to borrow). My "Scandal of Prediction" (bogus predictions that seem to be there to satisfy psychological needs) is compounded by the "Scandal of Debt": borrowing makes you more vulnerable to forecast error.

Just as Mother Nature likes redundancies, so she abhors anything that is too big. The largest land animal is the elephant, and there is a reason for that. If I went on a rampage and shot an elephant, I might be put in jail and get yelled at by my mother, but I would hardly disturb the ecology of Mother Nature. On the other hand, my point about banks in my book - that if you shot a large bank, I would "shiver at the consequences" and that "if one falls, they all fall" - was subsequently illustrated by events: one bank failure, Lehman Brothers, in September 2008, brought down the entire edifice.

The crisis of 2008 provides an illustration of the need for robustness. Over the past 2,500 years of recorded ideas, only fools and Platonists have believed in engineered utopias. We shouldn't think that we can correct mistakes and eliminate randomness from social and economic life. The challenge, rather, is to ensure that human mistakes and miscalculations remain confined, and to avoid them spreading through the system - just the way Mother Nature does it. Reducing randomness increases exposure to Black Swans.

My dream is to have a true "epistemocracy"; that is, a society robust against expert errors, forecasting errors and hubris, one that can be resistant to the incompetence of politicians, regulators, economists, central bankers, bank ers, policy wonks and epidemiologists.Here are ten principles for a Black Swan-robust society.

What is fragile should break early while it's still small: Nothing should ever become too big to fail. Evolution in economic life helps those with the maximum amount of hidden risks become the biggest.

No socialisation of losses and privatisation of gains: Whatever may need to be bailed out should be nationalised; whatever does not need a bailout should be free, small and risk-bearing. We got ourselves into the worst of capitalism and socialism. In France, in the 1980s, the Socialists took over the banks. In the US in the 2000s, the banks took over the government. This is surreal.

People who drove a school bus blindfolded (and crashed it) should never be given a new bus: The economics establishment lost its legitimacy with the failure of the system in 2008. Find the smart people whose hands are clean to get us out of this mess.

Don't let someone making an "incentive" bonus manage a nuclear plant - or your financial risks: Odds are he would cut every corner on safety to show "profits" from these savings while claiming to be "conservative". Bonuses don't accommodate the hidden risks of blow-ups. It is the asymmetry of the bonus system that got us here. No incentives without disincentives.

Time to definancialise
Compensate complexity with simplicity: Complexity from globalisation and highly networked economic life needs to be countered by simplicity in financial products. Complex systems survive thanks to slack and redundancy, not debt and optimisation.

Do not give children sticks of dynamite, even if they come with a warning label: Complex financial products need to be banned because nobody understands them, and few are rational enough to know it. We need to protect citizens from themselves, from bankers selling them "hedging" products, and from gullible regulators who listen to economic theorists.

Only Ponzi schemes should depend on confidence: Governments should never need to "restore confidence". Cascading rumours are a product of complex systems. Governments cannot stop the rumours. We just need to be able to shrug off rumours, to be robust to them. Do not give an addict more drugs if he has withdrawal pains: Using leverage to cure the problems of too much leverage is not homoeopathy, it's denial. The debt crisis is not a temporary problem, it's a structural one. We need rehab.

Citizens should not depend on financial assets as a repository of value and rely on fallible "expert" advice for their retirement: Economic life should be definancialised. We should learn not to use markets as warehouses of value.

Make an omelette with the broken eggs: The crisis of 2008 was not a problem to fix with makeshift repairs. We will have to remake the system before it does so itself. Let us move voluntarily into a robust economy by helping what needs to be broken break on its own, converting debt into equity, marginalising the economics and business school establishments, banning leveraged buyouts, putting bankers where they belong, clawing back the bonuses of those who got us here and teaching people to navigate a world with fewer certainties. Then we will see an economic life closer to our biological environment: smaller firms and no leverage - a world in which entrepreneurs, not bankers, take the risks, and in which companies are born and die every day without making the news.

What Drives People - Autonomy, Mastery, Purpose.

Nice video that summarizes the current thoughts on motivation theory - its not about the money (as long as it meets expectations), but rather about things higher on the Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Nothing super fresh, but well presented anyways.

This American Life on Healthcare

Many insights on the american healthcare system from the stellar NPR show, such as:

• Having more doctors raises healthcare costs (the supply drives the demand, unexpectedly - an upward sloping demand curve, egads)
  
• One third of medical spending is on procedures that do not make us any better ... (like that time when a doctor prescribed a CAT scan for me when I reported a blocked nose)
  
• Perverse incentives - doctors get paid more for prescribing more procedures, even when they might hurt more than help
  
• The Prostate Cancer PSA test - the issue with false positives. When you run a test across the entire population, you are going to identify a whole lot of people as positive who never would have developed the cancer.
  
• Patients as Plaintiffs - doctors reject guidelines and do not follow evidence based treatment, just to minimize the chance of getting sued
  
• Hospital monopolies are just as bad for consumers as insurance monopolies.
  
• Costs will keep rising until consumers make sacrifices (and they will not make sacrifices if part of the costs are not passed on to them).
  
• Patients unwittingly side with doctors when negotiating prices of procedures, even if if makes sense to side with the insurers as they are the ones representing us financially
  
• Medical facilities and insurers have similar levels of profitability. And if they are running on a fixed margin basis, there is no incentive to keep costs down.
  
• Costs are going up so fast that there is broad consensus that something has to change. Things are hopeless across the board, and that gives us hope that something will be done.
  

Not only is the earth flat, its also brutal.

Matt Taibbi takes some time out from burying Goldman Sachs to bury Tom Friedman. Hilarious, and with prose that is ... lets say, unrestrained.

Fisherman Bankers of Iceland

Michael Lewis with an ethno-analysis of Iceland crash, rather than the standard economic one. Vivid writing, and interesting conclusions. Reading it almost felt like watching a documentary. Definitely one of the best bits of journalism last year.

Link love

Just throwing reddit some link love so that they can unseat scientology for #1 rank for the query "is it possible to be happy".

Key Concept: Thought Terminating Cliche

The language of the totalist environment is characterized by the thought-terminating cliché. The most far-reaching and complex of human problems are compressed into brief, highly reductive, definitive-sounding phrases, easily memorized and easily expressed. These become the start and finish of any ideological analysis.
- Robert Lifton, M.D from book Psychology of Totalism

Goldman and AIG and Express Suicide

Hank Paulson was on Charlie Rose couple days ago claiming that Goldman Sachs did not see the housing bubble blowing - but this NYT article clearly shows that GS bet billions on the fact that the housing prices would go down.

Another strange thing in the article - AIG sold insurance that was, in part, contingent on its own financial health. That is, if it ever was in a compromising position, it would be required to pay out more. I would call it the Express Suicide clause. The consensus in this whole debacle seems like GS was able to find a trading partner who was rich and incompetent, and just big enough that it could be deemed too big to fail.

And now if the banks claim that they have returned the TARP funds, the follow up should be - has AIG? AIG is just as likely as GM to pay back anything. And those losses directly paid off GS ($12+ billion) and others like Societe General.

Healtcare - is more better?

Riveting piece of writing from New Yorkers' Atul Gawade. He parachutes into McAllen, TX and tries to find out why the county has the highest healthcare costs per capita in the country. I wont even try to distill what he has to say - worth reading every single word.

Free the markets? ... Now right now, not right now.

The housing crash has encouraged the government to get very hands on in managing the economy and put the free market principles on hold indefinitely. Calculated Risk has a list of government programs that are in place that impact the housing pricing.

The US government is now in the business of propping up house prices, and that is going to be bad for the economy and taxpayers in the medium and long run. The true price of housing is very hard to figure out right now - and certainly prices will be lower if these programs go away. And many of these programs are extremely inefficient, costing the taxpayers 10X more than the actual benefit delivered to the homeowners. And the artificially low interest rates are also wreaking havoc on many parts of the economy and causing a boom in risky assets - and that bubble will pop sooner or later. The quicker these distortionary policies end, the better off the economy is going to be. Until then, rational people will stay clear of investing in anything that has to do with housing - that puts your financial fate on the hand of the government, a risk that caclulates out to be not worth taking.

Steve Jobs Keynote Marathon

Watching a series of Jobs' keynotes at Macworld after he took over the reins in 1997. A summary of his presentations:

1997:
* Select a new board of directors
* Create meaningful partnerships (adobe, intuit, and MICROSOFT)
* Focus on being great, and not on competitors
* Key message in sober tone - focus on survival

1998:
* Kick off talk with Maslow's hierarchy of needs - survival, safety, social, esteem, self actualization - and how apple is progressing in these areas
* iMac
* Simplify product lineup (Pro/Consumer, desktop/laptop) - Classic!
* Transition from Os8 to OsX

1999:
* Quicktime streaming server (limited impact, but contributed to iTunes)
* Os9 (key feature: Sherlock). This was a stopgap anyways until OsX.
* iMac (new usb devices, software - including Halo, IBM Viavoice, MS Office 98)
* The big announcement is iBook - the consumer laptop. (Kodak Moment: It has a ... HANDLE. crowd goes nuts)
* And ONE more thing - Airport wireless networking (crowd goes nuts again)

2000:
* Mac OsX. Single OS strategy.
* Carbon, Cocoa, Aqua
* ... you spend months working on a button ...
* Red, yellow, green traffic lights for close, minimize, maximize.
* Key technique - set up a challenge for yourself and blow it away. (But how do you view the dock if its too small --- well we have something called magnification - crowd goes nuts)

2001:
* Retail stores
* powerbook titanium g4
* OsX launch in summer
* iTunes - more powerful yet simpler. And iPod. The shoots of apple's media strategy.

The story is pretty clear - Jobs focused on what was key at any given point in the company's history and put his all and his best people into that problem. He obsessed over it - and out thought everyone else. The results are nothing but spectacular.

The presentation technique is outstanding as well. No bullets. The projector is to show graphics, and not a mnemonic device. The audience is there to listen to you, and not to read stuff off the screen. His style is thoughtful and respectful - he makes the audience believe that he is in analysis mode and their feedback is valuable. The phrasing is precise - with emphasis on key phrases, which are reinforced on screen. The excitement comes through. There is very little focus on self, and everything is about the products.

California vs Texas

Couple of months ago Economist did a cover story comparing California and Texas, and now I noticed another article harping on the same topic.

The net migration out of the state is troubling. If it were not for the immigrants (both high tech and low tech), the state would be significantly shrinking. A few of the contributing factors are: budgeting by ballot, 60% majority required to pass budget, ceiling on property tax (which is pretty much older californians voting themselves a tax cut), and a mushrooming prison population. The high tech ecosystem is still well and alive, but with the education system falling behind, its not clear if we are going to be able to compete with the likes of bangalore and beijing. And unless there is a catastrophic crisis - things wont change.

Pinker on Decline of Violence

As we get caught in the constant focus on negativity in the media, its hard to lose track of the grander picture. Violence has been on decline over the ages, centuries, decades and years. Thanks, Professor Pinker for not limiting your talks to linguistics!

Eight Best Questions from Venture Capitalists

Great post on Techcrunch by Redfin's Glenn Kelman.

1. What’s your deadly sin?
Sequoia’s Roelof Botha said he only invests in companies that let consumers indulge in one of the seven deadly sins. He rattled them off with alarming familiarity. “You don’t want to be the site that people should use,” Roelof said. “You want to be the site they can’t stop using.”

... and many more.

Cautionary Tale of How Not to Respond to Critical Questions

When Michael Arrington (or any media rep) asks a tough question, its better to be transparent and respectful, rather than take the route of aggression and denial. The CEO in question here responded with french, and started a war of words with the TechCrunch head. It was quite futile really - as a friend of mine said - "People listen to Bloggers, not to bland CEOs".

It started out here:
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/10/31/scamville-the-social-gaming-ecosystem-of-hell/

And ended with this:
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/11/05/scamville-new-offerpal-ceo-admits-mistakes-makes-bold-promises/

Its all quite tragic really - a founder who probably worked years to build their company gets edged out because of a public faux pas. However, it was not just the outburst that led to the demise, but really shady business practices that were spotlighted because of the vehemence of the response. And most people, including investors, figured there must be something behind all of this.

In order for online advertising to gain legitimacy and share of budget proportional to attention share, there must be transparency across the whole value chain - all the way from the users, to the site publishers, to the ad networks, and advertisers. Thanks to Michael, this conversation has been initiated - lets see where it goes from here.