Must-Read: Jacqueline Bell (2007): Bear Stearns Hedge Funds File For Bankruptcy

Must-Read: Ten years ago tomorrow it started:

Jacqueline Bell (2007): Bear Stearns Hedge Funds File For Bankruptcy: “New York (August 1, 2007, 12:00 AM EDT)—Two Cayman Islands-based Bear Stearns hedge funds… https://www.law360.com/banking/articles/31291/bear-stearns-hedge-funds-file-for-bankruptcy

… that ran into trouble over risky investments connected to subprime mortgage loans filed for bankruptcy protection late Tuesday. The two hedge funds, Bear Stearns High-Grade Structured Credit Strategies Master Fund Ltd. and Bear Stearns High Grade Structured Credit Strategies Enhanced Leveraged Master Fund Ltd, filed for Chapter 15 bankruptcy protection in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.Both funds listed debts and assets in excess of $100 million in their bankruptcy petitions…

A glance at pay inequities for African American women’s Equal Pay Day

Employees work on a school bus on the assembly line at Blue Bird Corporation’s manufacturing facility in Fort Valley, Ga. (AP Photo/David Goldman)

Today marks African American women’s Equal Pay Day, which represents the day that black women must work to in 2017 to make the same amount of money that men (of all races ) did in 2016. For African American women that’s nearly an additional eight months of earning on average 63 cents for every dollar earned by a man last year. Although women (of all races) are paid 80 cents for every dollar men are paid, the wage gaps for African American women and  women of color are dramatically wider—only the wage gap for Asian American women is smaller than that of white women. The persistent gender wage gap continues to harm women, their families and the larger economy, but it is particularly damaging for African American women.

Persistent pay inequalities for African American women and women of color have far-reaching economic consequences. Lower pay lowers demand, which drags down economic growth. And to the extent that women are not employed in jobs that make the most of their skills and talents, this also drags down growth by reducing productivity.

We’ve updated Equitable Growth’s interactive tool with new data to compare wages within and across demographic groups in the United States. Our updated numbers continue to show that women, and even more so African American women, continue to earn considerably less than men. The data show that men earn a median wage of $20.00 per hour, while African American women earn a median wage of $14.47. The $5.53 difference constitutes a pay gap of approximately 38 percent relative to African American women’s hourly wage rate. (See Figure 1.)

Figure 1

Looking more closely at the wages across the distribution, we see that men get paid more at each decile. Men earning low wages make an average of  $9.53 per hour compared to an average wage of $8.25 earned by African American women at the low end of the pay scale, a pay gap of about 15 percent. At the high end of the earnings distribution, the pay gap is considerably wider, approximately 46 percent, with men earning $48.68 and African American women earning $33.42. The data illustrates that the pay gap between men and African American women is more narrow at the 10th percentile for low-wage workers and widens for workers as they move up the wage distribution.

When we look at the wage distributions for different genders, races, and ethnicities, we see the same pattern of widening pay gaps as a worker moves from low-wage to high-wage work. Men earning low wages make $9.53 per hour compared to a wage of $8.25 earned by African American women on the same pay scale, a pay gap of about 15 percent. At the high end of the earnings distribution, the pay gap is considerably wider, approximately 46 percent, with men earning $48.68 and African American women earning $33.42. (See Figure 2.)

Figure 2

At the lower end of the wage distribution, workers from different demographic backgrounds have relatively similar wages. Latina and African American women earning low wages average the least pay, $8.25 per hour, while white men at the same pay level earn the most, $10.13. This cluster of wages at the bottom is likely in part due to minimum wage laws, which provides a wage floor for workers and shrinks the dispersion of wages at the bottom.

For workers who earn middle-range wages, the gender gap grows. Latina and African American women at the median earn the least of these groups, earning on average $13.00 and $14.47 per hour, respectively, while white men earn $22.29. At the top of the earnings distribution, the wage gaps are the largest— $29.24 for Latinas,  $33.42 for African American women, but $51.90 for white men)—a difference of nearly $20.00 per hour.

This scattering of top wages reflects discrimination across both gender and race in the U.S. labor market. The pre-exisiting cultural and social norms we observe such as occupational segregation and the lack of family friendly policies in the workplace keep women from obtaining and holding onto high paying jobs. And racial discrimination within hiring practices and other labor market interactions play a large role in leaving workers of color behind. African American and Latina women are most disadvantaged as they experience both sets of discrimination at work.

Increasing educational attainment levels for all women of color, as is commonly suggested, has not proven to shrink the gender wage gap. Over the past few decades women received more college and graduate degrees than men and African American women’s college enrollment has accelerated. Despite this rise in educational attainment, African American women still earn less, experiencing a wage gap at every educational level.

Studying the wage distributions of workers by their level of educational attainment highlights this mismatch. By comparing the earnings of white men with high school degrees to African American women with college degrees we demonstrate that the return to a college degree for African American women is not enough. (See Figure 3.)

Figure 3

White men with high school degrees make about $9.62 per hour at the low end of the pay scale, only 13 percent less than African American women with a college degrees, who earn $10.90. In the middle, white men with a high school degree earn $18.23 per hour, or 17 percent less than the median African American women with a college degree, who earn $21.31. And even at the top of the wage distribution, the pay gap between white men with high school degrees and African American women with college degrees is only 24 percent.

Raising the minimum wage at the federal, state, and local levels would help compress the pay gaps we observe between workers in different demographic groups. This data, however, show that we need to focus on workers higher up the income ladder. Policies to mitigate workplace discrimination, increase worker bargaining power, and family friendly policies would also help reduce pay inequities for women of color. Until we address structural sexism and racism, they will continue to have negative economic consequences for these groups of workers unless addressed by our broader community.

Must-Read:Paul Krugman: Who Ate Republicans’ Brains?

Must-Read: And where was the phalanx of Republican health care experts united in condemnation of the McConnell approach? If you didn’t sign a public letter calling for a very different process, why should you have standing to participate in any future reality-based policy debate? Just asking:

Paul Krugman: Who Ate Republicans’ Brains?: “Senator Lindsey Graham was entirely correct when he described the final effort at repeal as ‘terrible policy and horrible politics’, a ‘disaster’ and a ‘fraud’. He voted for it anyway… https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/31/opinion/republicans-trumpcare-obamacare-lies.html

…and so did 48 of his colleagues… caught in their own web of lies. They fought against the idea of universal coverage… denounced the Affordable Care Act for failing to cover enough people; they made “skin in the game,” i.e., high out-of-pocket costs, the centerpiece… then denounced… high deductibles….

But the stark dishonesty of the Republican jihad against Obamacare itself demands an explanation. For it went well beyond normal political spin: for seven years a whole party kept insisting that black was white and up was down. And that kind of behavior doesn’t come out of nowhere. The Republican health care debacle was the culmination of a process of intellectual and moral deterioration that began four decades ago…. A key moment came in the 1970s, when Irving Kristol, the godfather of neoconservatism, embraced supply-side economics — the claim, refuted by all available evidence and experience, that tax cuts pay for themselves by boosting economic growth. Writing years later, he actually boasted about valuing political expediency over intellectual integrity: “I was not certain of its economic merits but quickly saw its political possibilities.” In another essay, he cheerfully conceded to having had a “cavalier attitude toward the budget deficit,” because it was all about creating a Republican majority—so “political effectiveness was the priority, not the accounting deficiencies of government.” The problem is that once you accept the principle that it’s O.K. to lie if it helps you win elections, it gets ever harder to limit the extent of the lying—or even to remember what it’s like to seek the truth….

Looking back, it’s easy to see the rot spreading. Compared with Donald Trump, the elder Bush looks like a paragon—but his administration lied relentlessly about rising inequality. His son’s administration lied consistently about its tax cuts, pretending that they were targeted on the middle class…. Given this history, the Republican health care disaster was entirely predictable…. And let’s be clear: we’re talking about Republicans here, not the “political system.”… Republicans have spent decades losing their ability to think straight, and they’re not going to get it back anytime soon.

Understanding the importance of antitrust policy for U.S. economic competitiveness and consumer choice

US Airways and American Airlines planes are shown at gates at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, February 14, 2013, in Grapevine, Texas.

In a new paper in the Washington Center for Equitable Growth’s ongoing series on antitrust policy and its implications for the economic well-being of U.S. workers and consumers, John E. Kwoka of Northeastern University documents the rise in industry concentration and examines the evidence for one possible explanation: the change in merger enforcement policy at the Federal Trade Commission, or FTC, and the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Kwoka examines FTC enforcement data from the mid-1990s through 2011, finding that enforcement rates for mergers that would result in four or fewer significant competitors not only remained high but also increased marginally over that time. But for mergers where the number of remaining significant competitors was more than four, enforcement not only fell over the analyzed time period but also had literally ceased by 2007.

Figure 1

While Kwoka acknowledges the limitation of the data, which only cover FTC actions, not the Department of Justice, and don’t extend fully to the present time, it is noteworthy that these findings are consistent with several well-known real world examples of consolidation, such as the telecommunications industry, dominated by four companies, as well as the airline industry. As Kwoka points out, only 10 years ago, there were six major legacy airlines, plus Southwest and several low-cost carriers. In 2008, the Department of Justice permitted the merger of Delta and Northwest to move forward, setting off a wave of mergers in the industry that has left us today with only four significant competitors and severely curtailed consumer choice.

These findings are all the more interesting in light of earlier research that Kwoka has done. He has examined the level of concentration at which anti-competitive outcomes become nearly certain, finding that prices rose in nearly 95 percent of instances of mergers that resulted in six or fewer remaining significant competitors. As Kwoka himself notes, “It is notable, therefore, that it is in precisely this range of five to seven significant competitors where enforcement policy has shifted so dramatically in the past 20 years.”

The antitrust enforcement line, therefore, has effectively been drawn in the wrong place. The consequences of using four remaining significant competitors rather than six have led to rising concentration and harm to competition and consumers.

Kwoka mentions several explanations for this shift in merger enforcement policy, including agency budget constraints. The explanation he focuses on is changes in antitrust policy’s presumptions about the competitive consequences of increases in concentration.

Over the past 50 years, those presumptions shifted from a viewpoint that held that even modest increases in concentration would result in above-competitive prices and profits to one in which it was believed that tougher merger standards sacrificed cost efficiencies, which presumably would be passed along to consumers. While antitrust policy has moderated somewhat from that so-called Chicago school view, the FTC enforcement data from 1996 through 2011 nonetheless demonstrate that there has continued to be a shift away from merger enforcement actions in all but the most concentrated markets.

Furthermore, while the latest merger guidelines, published in 2010, emphasize the multiplicity of relevant factors beyond just cost efficiencies in evaluating the likelihood of possible harms from a merger, they also further relax the thresholds for the levels and changes in concentration at which a merger might be presumed to lessen competition.

Kwoka concludes by calling for the strengthening of antitrust policy by revisiting policy decisions about which standards to use when considering merger proposals to ensure that policy hasn’t diverged from the evidence. This will also require investing in further analytical and empirical work to inform that decision-making. In addition, agency budgets need to be expanded to ensure that they have adequate resources to vigorously pursue the merger cases that raise these concerns.

Should-Read: Robert C. Feenstra and David E. Weinstein: Globalization, Markups, and US Welfare

Should-Read: Robert C. Feenstra and David E. Weinstein: Globalization, Markups, and US Welfare: “We work with symmetric translog preferences… http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/692695

…find that between 1992 and 2005, US import shares rose and US firms exited, leading to an implied fall in markups, while variety went up because of imports. US welfare rose by nearly 1 percent as a result of these changes, with product variety contributing one-half of that total and declining markups the other half…

Must-Read: Chris Dillow: Cronyism, & the demand for redistribution

Must-Read: Very important, I believe:

Chris Dillow: Cronyism, & the demand for redistribution: “Is actually-existing capitalism a fair or a rigged game?… http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2017/07/cronyism-the-demand-for-redistribution.html

…The answer matters a lot for attitudes towards redistribution, as some recent experiments by Matthias Sutter and colleagues show. They got people to choose between a safe investment and a risky one. After the pay-off to the risky investment was seen, they asked third parties whether they wanted to redistribute. When the pay-off to the risky asset was determined fairly–by the toss of a coin–few people were complete egalitarians. However, they then tweaked the experiment so that subjects who chose the risky asset could toss the coin themselves and report the result without anybody checking it. In this experiment, the number of third parties who were egalitarians tripled. Even the suspicion of cheating–let alone the reality–creates a big increase in demand for equality….

Luigi Zingales argues (pdf) that corporate and political power are becoming increasingly intertwined, and this is a threat to the free market, prosperity and democracy. Graeme Archer calls on the government to fight the “crony corporatism” which has seen bosses’ pay soar without any increase in economic efficiency. What we have here are mainstream and rightist writers acknowledging that the game is rigged, at least partly. Rhetoric about capitalism is changing. Even outside the left, the rich are no longer seen (only) as talented public beneficiaries whose rewards are the product of free markets, but also as thieves who exploit power for their own ends. Sutter’s experiments suggest this should cause a big rise in demand for redistribution. We don’t need to prove that theft and rent-seeking are widespread; the mere suspicion of it creates many more egalitarians. But there’s a quirk here…. Professor Sutter and colleagues infer from this that the suspicion of cheating creates political polarization. I draw another inference. It’s that we need much more than redistributive taxation to tackle cronyism. We need to change institutions to prevent rent-seeking. Whether Archer’s relatively mild suggestions–more transparency and shareholder power–are sufficient is something I very much doubt.

Should-Read: Cameron Joseph and Tierney Sneed: After Obamacare Repeal Collapse, GOP Weighs Whether To Help State Markets

Should-Read: “Unconstitutional but need to be made in a legal way…” is a very interesting category of congressional action…

Let us be very clear: the exchanges in blue states are in much better shape, and state governments can do a lot to shore them up and are willing to step in if the federal government drops the ball. It’s red states where the insurance exchanges are in trouble and where state governments lack the technocratic knowledge and the free cash flow needed:

Cameron Joseph and Tierney Sneed: After Obamacare Repeal Collapse, GOP Weighs Whether To Help State Markets: “Most Republicans have been happy to watch some state-level individual health insurance exchanges sputter… http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/after-obamacare-repeal-collapse-gop-weighs-whether-to-help-state-health-exchange-markets

…using those struggles as their main talking point for how Obamacare is failing under its own weight as the Trump administration exacerbated some of the exchanges’ problems. They assumed they’d be able to execute a broader policy change…. But after admitting defeat (at least for now) on a broad overhaul of the law, Republicans are beginning to come to grips with what to do going forward. “We’ve got to do something. The repeal effort’s dead so I think the next logical thing is we have to try to reach out and figure out where we can make health care better,” [said] Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL)…. Democrats are hopeful that their GOP brethren will be ready to move forward and craft a plan to stabilize the exchanges in the states that have been struggling…. But it’s unclear if Republicans are ready to move on and help fix the very real problems of some state-based exchanges in places like Iowa and Missouri where parts of states are left with just one, or even zero, health care options. President Trump, the man with by far the most power over that issue, has indicated he’s happy to let the exchanges continue to struggle—and threatened over the weekend to intentionally torpedo them….

Republicans… most believe that pulling the CSR payments would be policy malpractice, intentionally hurting Americans to make a political point, and carry big political risk. “I have said since December that while the CSR payments are not constitutional they need to be made in a legal way so that the market does not collapse. I have not changed my mind on that. We have to put the consumer first,” [said] House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Greg Walden (R-OR)….

There are some positive signs of bipartisan efforts, mostly on the Senate side. The chairman and ranking member of the Senate committee tasked with dealing with the largest chunks of healthcare, Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Patty Murray (D-WA) have expressed interest…. “I voted to take the next step toward what I believed was our best opportunity to repeal and replace Obamacare. The Senate’s failure to do this leaves an urgent problem that I am committed to addressing: Tennessee’s state insurance commissioner says our individual insurance market is very near collapse,” Alexander said in a statement after the vote failed. But even those Republicans who say they want to work in good faith… hint they’d been so focused on repealing Obamacare, they weren’t prepared with plans if it stood…

Clueless DeLong Was Clueless About What Was Coming in 2007 and 2008: Hoisted from the Archives

From November 2008: Why I Was Wrong… http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/11/why-i-was-wrong.html: Calculated Risk issues an invitation:

Calculated Risk: Hoocoodanode?: Earlier today, I saw Greg “Bush economist” Mankiw was a little touchy about a Krugman blog comment. My reaction was that Mankiw has some explaining to do. A key embarrassment for the economics profession in general, and Bush economists Greg Mankiw and Eddie Lazear in particular, is how they missed the biggest economic story of our times…. This was a typical response from the right (this is from a post by Professor Arnold Kling) in August 2006:

Apparently, the echo chamber of left-wing macro pundits has pronounced a recession to be imminent. For example, Nouriel Roubini writes, “Given the recent flow of dismal economic indicators, I now believe that the odds of a U.S. recession by year end have increased from 50% to 70%.” For these pundits, the most dismal indicator is that we have a Republican Administration. They have been gloomy for six years now…

Sure Roubini was early (I thought so at the time), but show me someone who has been more right! And this brings me to Krugman’s column: Lest We Forget

Why did so many observers dismiss the obvious signs of a housing bubble, even though the 1990s dot-com bubble was fresh in our memories? Why did so many people insist that our financial system was “resilient,” as Alan Greenspan put it, when in 1998 the collapse of a single hedge fund, Long-Term Capital Management, temporarily paralyzed credit markets around the world? Why did almost everyone believe in the omnipotence of the Federal Reserve when its counterpart, the Bank of Japan, spent a decade trying and failing to jump-start a stalled economy?

One answer to these questions is that nobody likes a party pooper…. There’s also another reason the economic policy establishment failed to see the current crisis coming. The crises of the 1990s and the early years of this decade should have been seen as dire omens, as intimations of still worse troubles to come. But everyone was too busy celebrating our success in getting through those crises to notice…

[I]n addition to looking forward, I think certain economists need to do some serious soul searching. Instead of leaving it to us to guess why their analysis was so flawed, I believe the time has come for Mankiw, Kling, and many other economists to write a post titled “Why I was wrong”…

And I respond:

Let me say what things I was “expecting,” in the sense of anticipating that it was they were both likely enough and serious enough that public policymakers should be paying significant attention to guarding the risks that it would create:

(1) A collapse of the dollar produced by a panic flight by investors who recognized the long-term consequences of the U.S. trade deficit.

or:

(2) A fall back of housing prices halfway from their peak to pre-2000 normal price-rental ratios.

I was not expecting (2) plus:

(3) the discovery that banks and mortgage companies had made no provision for how the loans they made would be renegotiated or serviced in the event of a housing-price downturn.

(4) the discovery that the rating agencies had failed in their assessment of lower-tail risk to make the standard analytical judgment: that when things get really bad all correlations go to one.

(5) the fact that highly-leveraged banks working on the originate-and-distribute model of mortgage securitization had originated but had not distributed: that they had, collectively, held on to much too much of the risks that they were supposed to find other people to handle—selling the systemic risk they had created, but not all of it, and buying the systemic risk that their peers had created.

(6) the panic flight from all risky assets–not just mortgages–upon the discovery of the problems in the mortgage market.

(7) the engagement in regulatory arbitrage which had left major banks even more highly leveraged than I had thought possible.

(8) the failure of highly-leveraged financial institutions to have backup plans for recapitalization in place in the case of a major financial crisis.

(9) the Bush administration’s (and the Federal Reserve’s!) sticking to a private-sector solution for the crisis for months after it had become clear that such a solution was no longer viable.

We could have interrupted this chain that has gotten us here at any of a number of places. And I still am trying to figure out why we did not.

Must- and Should-Reads: July 30, 2017


Interesting Reads:

Should-Read: Andy Slavitt: @ASlavitt on Twitter: “Trump plans to sabotage the ACA this week…

Should-Read: Andy Slavitt: @ASlavitt on Twitter: “Trump plans to sabotage the ACA this week… https://twitter.com/ASlavitt/status/891722458855866369

…If everyone handles it right, it won’t work. Trump’s single greatest bullet in his gun to disrupt ACA is to not make CSR payments…. Trump has been threatening it & I am hearing he will announce this Tuesday he won’t pay. There is a well documented record that this is political & violates the law. Well documented by Trump that is. But more importantly…

States & insurers by refilling can make this a neutral 2 positive 4 consumers & the only one to pay the price of this sabotage- Trump…

Dianna Welch and Kurt Giesa: “Payers will respond to CSR defunding by significantly raising rates on their exchange silver plan premiums…

…Because subsidies in 2018 will be based on the cost of the second lowest-cost silver plan, any increase in those premium rates will cause subsidies to increase in parallel…. Subsidies could increase to the extent that they would actually exceed the cost of a bronze plan for many lower-income enrollees. A substantial portion of the nearly 7 million marketplace enrollees eligible for CSR could receive a bronze-level plan for no cost, or upgrade to a gold-level plan at very low premiums…