Category: Risk

Is Ed Kane’s “Gathering Crisis” Still Gathering Steam?

Mary Pat Campbell

Link: https://govmoneynews.com/bills-blog/f/is-ed-kanes-gathering-crisis-still-gathering-steam

Excerpt:

Back in 1985, Ed Kane penned a prophetic volume identifying a blooming mess in financial markets. His book, The Gathering Crisis in Federal Deposit Insurance, reliably warned of taxpayer exposure to losses ultimately unleashed in the savings and loan crisis. 

Cycles of ensuing regulatory reforms, crises and scandals have only reinforced the timeliness of the lessons that Kane offered us decades ago. Those lessons became particularly poignant in light of the failure of Silicon Valley Bank and several other large banks earlier this year. 

Kane’s 1980s warnings remain worthy of scrutiny and reflection, and underscore questions whether industry and regulatory reforms have simply left us on the edge of another precipice. The financial conditions of the FDIC and the Federal Reserve – and their implications for the U.S. Treasury and American taxpayers – deserve close scrutiny, as well as recommendations for fundamental reform.

….

“In an economic environment in which deposit institutions are highly levered and entering new businesses every day and in which interest rates are highly volatile, systematically mispricing deposit insurance guarantees encourages deposit institution managers to position their firms on the edge of financial disaster. Metaphorically, deposit-insurance authorities are paying deposit-institution managers to overload the deposit-insurance jalopy, to drive it too fast, and even to break dance on its hood as it careens through interest rate mountains and over back-country roads. Reformers’ ultimate goals must be to confront institutions whose risk-taking imposes socially unacceptable risks on its federal guarantors with a combination of reduced coverages and increased fees sufficient to move them to adopt safer modes of operation.” (p. 147)

“Of course, just how safe, reliable, and comfortable a ride the nation enjoys depends also on the macroeconomic policies that the government follows. If Congress could bring government spending under long-run control, monetary policy would not have to push interest rates over so wide a cycle. Reducing the volatility of interest rates would relieve the car’s drivers of the need to take it over quite so dangerous a set of roads.” (p. 165)

Author(s): Bill Bergman

Publication Date: 20 Dec 2023

Publication Site: Bill’s Blog at GovMoneyNews

A Conversation With Benny Goodman

Mary Pat Campbell

Link: https://www.lifehealth.com/a-conversation-with-benny-goodman/

Graphic:

Excerpt:

PEK: Your research reveals a conundrum when comparing a variable annuity with systematic withdrawals from investment accounts (assuming similar investment returns): the annuity will generally outperform. How do we convey this very basic equivalency to our clients? 

BG: In my experience, I’ve seen that when some people get to retirement, they may have upwards of a half a million dollars in their accounts. Financial planners owe their clients more than just plans to help them accumulate assets and some well-wishes. Most people do not understand how to generate income from their savings that will last the rest of their lives.

Savings are exposed to market risk that can erode account balances before or in retirement, as we saw in The Great Recession of 2009 and the economic contraction during the coronavirus pandemic. And fifty percent of the population can expect to live beyond the average life expectancy in retirement, exposing them to longevity risk.

The practical reality is that most individuals cannot insulate themselves from risk on their own. Annuitizing a portion of a portfolio’s assets can help mitigate these issues.

PEK: You demonstrate that delaying the start of an annuity by five years may cost 5% in future income, which delaying ten years may cost 15%. Please talk about the time factor and the cost of delay.  

BG: The concept is based on something called “mortality credits.” When buying an annuity, you join an annuity pool. Every time someone dies early (before he spent all the money he contributed) the leftover money stays in the pool and is shared by all those still in the pool. The money becomes a mortality ‘credit’ for those who did not die. These mortality credits allow the former to get lifetime income. They start adding value from the day someone enters the pool. Those who purchase the annuity at a later time were not in that pool and do not get that credit. Purchasers only receive mortality credits for those people who died after the purchasers joined the pool. Lower mortality credit means lower lifetime income. Mortality credits have value by adding to income.

….

PEK: Likewise, how real is the prospect of outliving one’s assets today?

BG: It’s very real. Data from EBRI indicates that about 40% of Americans face the risk of running out of money in retirement.

Now, not many people continuously spend and then one day look at their account and say, “Oh no! There is no money left!” But well before that day, they will start adjusting their spending downward so as to make sure they don’t outlive their money. And some have to make drastic and painful decisions, like choosing between paying for rent or healthcare; to pay for the electric bill or for medicine. Some retirees will even take half the dosage of their prescribed medicine to conserve it. It may even require that retirees move in with a child rather than live in poverty. In certain family dynamics, living with elderly parents is expected, but it may not be ideal for many.

Author(s): P.E. Kelley, Benjamin Goodman

Publication Date: 30 Oct 2023

Publication Site: Advisor Magazine

The insurance industry’s renewed focus on disparate impacts and unfair discrimination

Mary Pat Campbell

Link: https://www.milliman.com/en/insight/the-insurance-industrys-renewed-focus-on-disparate-impacts-and-unfair-discrimination

Excerpt:

As consumers, regulators, and stakeholders demand more transparency and accountability with respect to how insurers’ business practices contribute to potential systemic societal inequities, insurers will need to adapt. One way insurers can do this is by conducting disparate impact analyses and establishing robust systems for monitoring and minimizing disparate impacts. There are several reasons why this is beneficial:

  1. Disparate impact analyses focus on identifying unintentional discrimination resulting in disproportionate impacts on protected classes. This potentially creates a higher standard than evaluating unfairly discriminatory practices depending on one’s interpretation of what constitutes unfair discrimination. Practices that do not result in disparate impacts are likely by default to also not be unfairly discriminatory (assuming that there are also no intentionally discriminatory practices in place and that all unfairly discriminatory variables codified by state statutes are evaluated in the disparate impact analysis).
  2. Disparate impact analyses that align with company values and mission statements reaffirm commitments to ensuring equity in the insurance industry. This provides goodwill to consumers and provides value to stakeholders.
  3. Disparate impact analyses can prevent or mitigate future legal issues. By proactively monitoring and minimizing disparate impacts, companies can reduce the likelihood of allegations of discrimination against a protected class and corresponding litigation.
  4. If writing business in Colorado, then establishing a framework for assessing and monitoring disparate impacts now will allow for a smooth transition once the Colorado bill goes into effect. If disparate impacts are identified, insurers have time to implement corrections before the bill is effective.

Author(s): Eric P. Krafcheck

Publication Date: 27 Sept 2021

Publication Site: Milliman

Despite vehicle safety improvements, US pedestrian deaths soar

Mary Pat Campbell

Link: https://scrippsnews.com/stories/despite-vehicle-safety-improvements-us-pedestrian-deaths-soar/

Graphic:

Excerpt:

Samuel’s death is part of a growing trend in America, where pedestrian and cyclist fatalities are up 60% since 2011 to more than 8,000 last year.

In the past 25 years, the percentage of people who died in road crashes — while inside a vehicle — dropped from 80% of all road deaths to 66%. At the same time, the share of pedestrian and bicyclist deaths climbed sharply – making up 20% of all road deaths in 1997, to now accounting for 34% of all road deaths.

Nicole Brunet is with the nonprofits Bicycle Coalition of Greater Philadelphia and Families for Safe Streets. She says street design is part of the issue.

“If you’re somebody in a car, the street is designed perfect for you,” Brunet said. “The ideal street is balanced: A street that’s built for a pedestrian and a bicyclist, somebody that has mobility issues. We need to think about the most vulnerable user of the road.”

Author(s): Maya Rodriguez

Publication Date: 5 Oct 2023

Publication Site: Scripps

SBF Was Reckless From the Start

Mary Pat Campbell

Link: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-10-04/sbf-was-reckless-from-the-start?srnd=undefined#xj4y7vzkg

Excerpt:

First: “A Jane Street intern had what amounted to a professional obligation to take any bet with a positive expected value”? Really? I feel like, if you are a trading intern, you are really there to learn two things. One is, sure, take bets with positive expected value and avoid bets with negative expected value.

But the other is about bet sizing. As a Jane Street intern, you have $100 to bet each day, and your quasi-job is to turn that into as much money as possible. Is betting all of it (or even $98) on a single bet with a 1% edge really optimal?[6] 

People have thought about this question! Like, this is very much a central thing that traders and trading firms worry about. The standard starting point is the Kelly criterion, which computes a maximum bet size based on your edge and the size of your bankroll. Given the intern’s bankroll of $100, I think Kelly would tell you to put at most $10 on this bet, depending on what exactly you mean by “this bet.”[7] Betting $98 is too much.

I am being imprecise, and for various reasons you might not expect the interns to stick to Kelly in this situation. But when I read about interns lining up to lose their entire bankroll on bets with 1% edge, I think, “huh, that’s aggressive, what are they teaching those interns?” (I suppose the $100 daily loss limit is the real lesson about position sizing: The interns who wipe out today get to come back and play again tomorrow.) 

But I also think about a Twitter argument that Bankman-Fried had with Matt Hollerbach in 2020, in which Bankman-Fried scoffed at the Kelly criterion and said that “I, personally, would do more” than the Kelly amount. “Why? Because ultimately my utility function isn’t really logarithmic. It’s closer to linear.” As he tells Lewis, “he had use for ‘infinity dollars’” — he was going to become a trillionaire and use the money to cure disease and align AI and defeat Trump, sure — so he always wanted to maximize returns.

But as Hollerbach pointed out, this misunderstands why trading firms use the Kelly criterion.[8] Jane Street does not go around taking any bet with a positive expected value. The point of Kelly is not about utility curves; it’s not “having $200 is less than twice as pleasant as having $100, so you should be less willing to take big risks for big rewards.” The point of Kelly is about maximizing your chances of surviving and obtaining long-run returns: It’s “if you bet 50% of your bankroll on 1%-edge bets, you’ll be more likely to win each bet than lose it, but if you keep doing that you will probably lose all your money eventually.” Kelly is about sizing your bets so you can keep playing the game and make the most money possible in the long run. Betting more can make you more money in the short run, but if you keep doing it you will end in ruin.

Author(s): Matt Levine

Publication Date: 4 Oct 2023

Publication Site: Bloomberg

[109] Data Falsificada (Part 1): “Clusterfake”

Mary Pat Campbell

Link: https://datacolada.org/109

Graphic:

Excerpt:

Two summers ago, we published a post (Colada 98: .htm) about a study reported within a famous article on dishonesty (.htm). That study was a field experiment conducted at an auto insurance company (The Hartford). It was supervised by Dan Ariely, and it contains data that were fabricated. We don’t know for sure who fabricated those data, but we know for sure that none of Ariely’s co-authors – Shu, Gino, Mazar, or Bazerman – did it [1]. The paper has since been retracted (.htm).

That auto insurance field experiment was Study 3 in the paper.

It turns out that Study 1’s data were also tampered with…but by a different person.

That’s right:
Two different people independently faked data for two different studies in a paper about dishonesty.

The paper’s three studies allegedly show that people are less likely to act dishonestly when they sign an honesty pledge at the top of a form rather than at the bottom of a form. Study 1 was run at the University of North Carolina (UNC) in 2010. Gino, who was a professor at UNC prior to joining Harvard in 2010, was the only author involved in the data collection and analysis of Study 1 [2].

Author(s): Uri Simonsohn, Leif Nelson, and Joseph Simmons

Publication Date: 17 Jun 2023

Publication Site: Data Colada

The Moral Hazards of Being Beautiful

Mary Pat Campbell

Link: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-moral-hazards-of-being-beautiful-94346e61

Excerpt:

Beauty has its privileges. Studies reliably show that the most physically attractive among us tend to get more attention from parents, better grades in school, more money at work and more satisfaction from life. A study published in January in the Journal of Economics and Business found that good-looking banking CEOs take in over $1 million more in total compensation, on average, than their lesser-looking peers. “Good looks pay off,” the authors write.

…..

Scientists attribute the human tendency to give attractive people better treatment to something called the halo effect. Basically, we tend to assume that good looks are a sign of intelligence, trustworthiness and good character and that ugliness is similarly more than skin deep. “Personal beauty is a greater recommendation than any letter of reference,” Aristotle observed. This may help explain why attractive people are less likely to be arrested or convicted, even after controlling for criminal involvement, according to a 2019 study of nationally representative data published in the journal Psychiatry, Psychology and Law.

….

Yet those of us who never got that genetic golden ticket should take heart: The halo effect appears to go both ways. A number of studies show that goodness often enhances our looks. A paper in PLOS One in February, for example, reports that people found faces in photos more attractive when they learned the subjects were honest, kind and not aggressive. The results suggest that “facial attractiveness is malleable,” the authors write. Or as Sappho observed: “What is beautiful is good and what is good will soon be beautiful.”

Author(s): Emily Bobrow

Publication Date: 10 June 2023

Publication Site: WSJ

State Variation in Underreporting of Alcohol Involvement on Death Certificates: Motor Vehicle Traffic Crash Fatalities as an Example

Mary Pat Campbell

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3965684/

Graphic:

Abstract:

Abstract

Objective:

We used motor vehicle traffic (MVT) crash fatalities as an example to examine the extent of underreporting of alcohol involvement on death certificates and state variations.

Method:

We compared MVT-related death certificates identified from national mortality data (Multiple Cause of Death [MCoD] data) with deaths in national traffic census data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). Because MCoD data were not individually linked to FARS data, the comparisons were at the aggregate level. Reporting ratio of alcohol involvement on death certificates was thus computed as the prevalence of any mention of alcohol-related conditions among MVT deaths in MCoD, divided by the prevalence of decedents with blood alcohol concentration (BAC) test results (not imputed) of .08% or greater in FARS. Through bivariate analysis and multiple regression, we explored state characteristics correlated with state reporting ratios.

Results:

Both MCoD and FARS identified about 450,000 MVT deaths in 1999–2009. Reporting ratio was only 0.16 for all traffic deaths and 0.18 for driver deaths nationally, reflecting that death certificates captured only a small percentage of MVT deaths involving BAC of .08% or more. Reporting ratio did not improve over time, even though FARS indicated that the prevalence of BAC of at least .08% in MVT deaths increased from 19.9% in 1999 to 24.2% in 2009. State reporting ratios varied widely, from 0.02 (Nevada and New Jersey) to 0.81 (Delaware).

Conclusions:

The comparison of MCoD with FARS revealed a large discrepancy in reporting alcohol involvement in MVT deaths and considerable state variation in the magnitude of underreporting. We suspect similar underreporting and state variations in alcohol involvement in other types of injury deaths.

Author(s): I-Jen P Castle, Ph.D.,a,* Hsiao-Ye Yi, Ph.D.,a Ralph W Hingson, Sc.D.,b and Aaron M White, Ph.D.b

Publication Date: March 2014

Publication Site: Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, National Library of Medicine

Why You’re Losing More to Casinos on the Las Vegas Strip

Mary Pat Campbell

Link: https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-youre-losing-more-to-casinos-on-the-las-vegas-strip-73f6f3ab?st=x02m0zq2rrmv5sj&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink&fbclid=IwAR22FpxvLhFtnRbQ0YaEwFgHqN764ULdkADv9QXOGc-PKpeTbds8nUrIUs0

Graphic:

Excerpt:

Casinos on the Vegas Strip are making it costlier to play and harder to win.  

Payouts are lower for winning blackjack hands. Bets on some roulette wheels are riskier. And it is taking more cash to play at many game tables.

Blackjack players lost nearly $1 billion to casinos on the Strip last year, the second-highest loss on record, after 2007, according to data from the Nevada Gaming Control Board. 

Some Las Vegas casinos cut back the number of blackjack tables with dealers, raised minimum bets during busy times and lifted their advantage over players in some games—doubling-down on a prepandemic practice of making subtle changes that favor the house, according to industry executives, researchers and gamblers.

….

Blackjack, a fast-paced card game, historically paid out a ratio of 3:2 when a player hit 21 on the first two cards. That means a gambler wins $15 for every $10 bet. Now, many blackjack tables on the Strip pay out at 6:5, which means that same $10 yields only $12.

John and Kristina Mehaffey, owners of gambling-news and data company Vegas Advantage, have been cataloging these changes since 2011, walking miles-long routes through casinos to record the number of blackjack and roulette tables set outside of VIP areas.

According to the Mehaffeys’ data, more than two-thirds of blackjack tables on the Strip currently offer 6:5 payouts, as opposed to 3:2.

….

Las Vegas visitors on vacation might not notice—or might not care—about the casinos’ increased advantage, says Bill Zender, a casino consultant who focuses on table-game management. But casinos risk losing business over time, he says. 

“If you go into a casino and gamble, and you lose your money fairly quickly, almost every time, you don’t feel you’re getting the bang for your buck,” Zender said.

Author(s): Katherine Sayre

Publication Date:29 May 2023

Publication Site: WSJ

Paying more for less

Mary Pat Campbell

Link: https://allisonschrager.substack.com/p/paying-more-for-less

Excerpt:

Between the controversies at Disney, Bud Light, and Target, I think we need a return to shareholder primacy.

In 2019, many of the biggest American CEOs signed a manifesto declaring the end of shareholder primacy and embracing a new stakeholder model. With shareholder primacy, the main objective of a corporation is to maximize profits, both long- and short-term profits, because that is what boosts share prices and dividends, and shareholders like that. With the stakeholder model, a corporation has many other objectives: worker well-being, the environment, and the good of society. That may sound nice, but often, these stakeholders have competing objectives, and choosing who gets priority is a question of values.

When Milton Friedman argued for shareholder primacy, he said that a CEO should not forgo profits to exercise his personal values. It is not his money to spend, and not everyone shares his values, nor should they. And worse, I blame the multi-stakeholder model  for making everything feel more political.

Now, I realize even before 2019, companies were getting more political, but it got ramped up several notches in 2020. And now, everything you buy feels like a political statement. And even innocuous well-intentioned marketing campaigns that aim to give visibility to marginalized groups are taken as an explicit endorsement of a more divisive political agenda. I think shooting Bud Light cans in protest is stupid. But I get that people feel frustrated that everything is political and often not their politics.

And even if corporations mostly did pursue profits after 2019, and the stakeholder manifesto was a cynical ploy to appease young workers, get ESG capital, or avoid regulation, rhetoric matters. Before 2019, people could shrug at corporate pandering because it all seemed like a marketing ploy, and who can argue with selling lawn chairs and beer to the trans community? It is a growing demographic.

But in the context of announcing that you are doing it to make the world a better place, it strikes a different tone. And since stakeholder capitalism is about choosing between competing values, it is political. And now everything is worse for profits and society, since it adds to division and rancor.

Milton Friedman was right; shareholder primacy is better for corporations and society.

If CEOs really want to save the world, they should do the brave thing: announce an end to stakeholder capitalism and go back to just worrying about profits.

Author(s): Allison Schrager

Publication Date: 5 Jun 2023

Publication Site: Known Unknowns at substack

Why Insurers Are Fleeing California

Mary Pat Campbell

Link: https://www.wsj.com/articles/state-farm-homeowners-insurance-california-2a934a22?st=0vc5cbqwbedf0b2&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

Excerpt:

State Farm General Insurance Co. last week became the latest insurer to retreat from California’s homeowners market. The culprit isn’t climate change, as the media claims in parroting Sacramento talking points. The cause is the Golden State’s hostile insurance environment.

The nation’s top property and casualty insurer on Friday said it won’t accept new applications for homeowners insurance, citing “historic increases in construction costs outpacing inflation, rapidly growing catastrophe exposure, and a challenging reinsurance market.”

In other words, State Farm can’t accurately price risk and increase its rates to cover ballooning liabilities. Other property and casualty insurers, including AIG and Chubb, have also been shrinking their California footprint after years of catastrophic wildfires, which are becoming more common owing to drought and decades of poor forest management.

Author(s): Editorial Board

Publication Date: 30 May 2023

Publication Site: Wall Street Journal

Statement of CFPB Director Rohit Chopra, Member, FDIC Board of Directors, on the Proposed Special Deposit Insurance Assessment on Large Banks

Mary Pat Campbell

Link: https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/statement-of-cfpb-director-rohit-chopra-member-fdic-board-of-directors-on-the-proposed-special-deposit-insurance-assessment-on-large-banks/

Graphic:

Excerpt:

First, we need to simplify our rules while strengthening them. Too many areas of regulation across our economy have become so complicated with weird formulas, dizzying methodologies, and endless loopholes and carveouts. We need simpler rules to prevent future disasters. A better alternative is to create bright line limits, with clear sanctions, including size caps and growth restrictions. Clearly observable metrics make it easier to monitor and increase consistency.

Second, we need to stop subsidizing the largest and riskiest banks by giving out free deposit insurance. When small banks fail, they rarely lead to much cost to the FDIC’s Deposit Insurance Fund, since they can be fairly easily wound down or sold. But when large banks fail, the costs to the Deposit Insurance Fund and broader economy can be steep. To make matters worse, those institutional clients with the biggest deposits feel they can get around insurance limits by going to the biggest banks. In other words, people perceive that the biggest banks get free deposit insurance over the legal limits by way of their too-big-to-fail status.

Fixing our deposit insurance pricing structure is just one small step that could help address this problem. Large, riskier banks should pay more and small, simpler banks should pay less. We should also make the framework countercyclical, so that we aren’t in the position of raising rates when banking conditions are weak.

While today’s proposed special assessment will not fall on small, local banks, the failure of First Republic Bank will be a direct hit to the Deposit Insurance Fund that is not being recouped through this special assessment. It’s a reminder that we need to fix the fund’s pricing over the long term.

Finally, as Swiss policymakers made clear regarding the recent turmoil involving Credit Suisse, more people are saying the quiet part out loud: the current resolution plans filed by the largest financial institutions in the world, which purport to show how the firms could fail without a government bailout or economic chaos, are essentially a fairy tale.5

The latest failures are another reminder that we must work to eliminate the unfair advantages bestowed upon too-big-to-fail banks. New laws and old laws alike provide a roadmap to end too-big-to-fail and the resulting risks to financial stability, fair competition, and the rule of law.6

Author(s): Rohit Chopra

Publication Date: 11 May 2023

Publication Site: Consumer Finance Protection Bureau