Top

The Housing Problem: China's Ghost Cities

picture31.png

By Rob Gelb

Imagine cities like New York City completely deserted, where the homes of millions of people are either uninhabited or abandoned. A ghost town, if you will. China faces such realities in their country, as demand continues to suffer in the housing market and prices keep falling. Based on data from China's National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), new home prices fell by 5.1% on average from the year-ago period for a majority of cities. The housing sector is significant in China, too, contributing to around 15% of its economy. Furthermore, housing is so abundant that there are not enough people to live in these properties. That is where “ghost cities” start springing up throughout the country. As business executive Michael Garrity notes, “The problem China has now is large developer inventories. Chinese developers have two to five years of inventory still to sell off.” One of the main responses by the Chinese government has been more stimulus, particularly in the housing sector. While this initiative has been swift--there was a $328 billion surge in new credit two months ago--pumping in so much money to prevent housing prices from falling will not work overnight. Even if China can handle this spending now, who is to say that their money is going where it needs to in the long run?Sourceshttp://bit.ly/1AoX4Prhttp://bv.ms/1wrleVz

Shadowboxing

picture21.png

By Kevin Grant McClernon

A string of defaults by Chinese firms could spell trouble for the Chinese economy. Debt defaults are never a good thing. They are even worse when the lenders are in “the shadow.” “Shadow lending” is a process by which companies unable to secure traditional financing from banks turn to other companies for loans. Following the international credit crunch after the financial crisis, the Chinese government condoned shadow lending as an alternative means to provide liquidity to a still-growing Chinese economy. Shadow lending increased about 125% in 2010. As of 2015, the total outstanding balance of shadow loans in China is about 22 trillion Chinese yuan (about $3.5 trillion). It is a dangerous practice -- the potential repercussions are significant. One firm defaults on a shadow loan, endangering the balance sheet of another. Then another. And another. As the process continues, the theoretical domino effect multiplies and the trouble extends throughout the economy – beyond just the financial system. As China’s government scrambles to save the faltering economy, shadow defaults could be an unanticipated punch in the gut.Sourceshttp://on.wsj.com/1Cn7Nw3http://on.wsj.com/1bqOdoq

Chinese Central Bank to the Rescue

peoples-bank-china-gi-top.jpg

By Joe Kearns

The People’s Bank of China has answered its call to action. Chinese economic growth declined from 14.2% in 2007 to 7.3% in the last quarter of 2014, prompting the PBOC to lower interest rates twice in the past three months. Additionally, the PBOC expanded its medium-term lending facility, a monetary tool from which individual banks can draw reserves for more liquidity. These measures attempt to reverse a declining property market and deflationary pressure induced by falling commodity and oil prices. UBS economist Wang Tao argues, “Against this backdrop, it would seem clear that monetary policy in China should be eased more aggressively.” Investors, however, appear to be comfortable with the current scope of the PBOC’s intervention, as fewer investors are betting that interest rates will change soon. Moreover, Wall Street Journal commentator Greg Ip warns that if the PBOC takes more aggressive actions like currency devaluation, it would not help global markets because China has strict controls limiting capital mobility. Has China resolved its problem or opened Pandora’s box?Sourceshttp://reut.rs/1CMppBUhttp://bloom.bg/1EXMZNOhttp://on.wsj.com/19gSxWLhttp://nyti.ms/1DUQZyq

The Optimal Bundle Special Report on the Chinese Economy

chian_3.jpg

The Optimal Bundle is a student publication run by the Penn State Economics Association’s Print Education Subcommittee. It centers on a single economic topic covered in-depth from multiple perspectives.This edition of the Optimal Bundle features the Chinese economy, as it faces an ongoing economic slowdown.This is an online version of the print edition of the Optimal Bundle.

Launch Optimal Bundle

Let's Talk About Sexes

o-gender-pay-gap-facebook.jpg

You have probably heard this one before. A man and a woman work the same job. They have the same qualifications, background, age, etcetera. One difference: their gender. The result? About a 20% income difference, at least. Sounds familiar, right?Here is a reminder from Exhibit A: Patricia Arquette. She has won nearly every award within her category for her performance in the film “Boyhood,” but at the biggest awards ceremony of the year, the Oscars, here’s what she has to say in her speech: “To every woman who gave birth, to every taxpayer and citizen of this nation, we have fought for everybody else’s equal rights. It’s our time to have wage equality once and for all and equal rights for women in the United States of America.” It is a heck of a platform to do that, and it goes to show that businesses are not the only guilty ones in this troublesome pattern.Mind you, everyone is different and offers something different, something that can radically impact the difference in salary between one person and another. However, when you start trying to draw the line between dissimilarities in skill set and signs of gender discrimination, things get a bit messy.If anything, we still get this reminder that while we should be aware of it, we never have a complete idea of how widespread it is. On one hand, the gender gap has been narrowing for over the past 100 years and was up to 0.80. On the other hand, this narrowing has stalled in the late 1990s, and not much has changed since. One could argue that employers have to consider that some women tend to go on maternal leave, and that some never come back, but has the income ratio between men and women reached its peak? Should it be a one-to-one ratio? Many activists argue “yes.” The first step of course is consistent awareness.If it keeps coming up, what does that tell us in regards to what is being done?Sourceshttp://www.wsj.com/video/gender-pay-gap-behind-patricia-arquette-oscar-speech/2265AD4E-1889-4EF4-AFBD-9F8E1548AAFD.html?mod=trending_now_video_3http://www.hitfix.com/in-contention/here-is-the-transcript-to-patricia-arquettes-oscars-acceptance-speechhttp://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/GenderGap.html

It's Time to Free Willy

sea-world-2.png

By Camille MendozaA dead whale, animal rights activists protesting outside SeaWorld parks every day, and the CEO stepping down have not deterred SeaWorld yet. But perhaps the 50% fall in stock value will. Following the backlash of a 2013 documentary called "Blackfish," which details the horrific and inhumane treatment that orcas face in the theme parks, SeaWorld's revenue fell to $495.8 million in November 2014 from $538.4 million a year earlier, and profit dropped to $87.2 million from $120.7 million. These are a direct result from the 5% decline in park attendance. While these numbers seem hurtful, a company like SeaWorld thrives off sponsorships and marketing deals, but even these seem to be waning.Sea WorldCorporate sponsors and celebrities are backing out from contracts and endorsements with the marine mammal organization, signaling a deep lack of confidence all across the board. Sponsors such as Hyundai Motor America, Panama Jack, Southwest Airlines, and Virgin America have cut ties with the company, and, perhaps the most shocking organization to end the partnership was the Miami Dolphins, who will not renew its marketing contract with SeaWorld after it expires in March. In today's society, there are few people who have more influence than celebrities, and some, including Olivia Wilde, Matt Damon, and Ewan McGregor, also spoke out against SeaWorld. All of these unfortunate events lead towards an obvious conclusion: SeaWorld needs some serious damage control.Before he stepped down in January 2015 after the negative media attention, former CEO Jim Atchison said in a news release, “Clearly 2014 has been a challenging year, but I am confident we are taking the necessary steps to address our near-term challenges and position the company to deliver value over the long term.” Consequently, the company responded to the backlash by announcing $50 million worth of cost cuts, which include laying off an unspecified number of employees, and a $300 million plan to double the volume of its killer whale habitats in all three parks, which should be completed by April 2018. Even so, these measures cannot undo the impact that the documentary Blackfish had on the world. As the public becomes more knowledgeable, the company becomes less profitable. If this trend continues, perhaps a world without unnecessary captivity is nearer than previously thought. The numbers don't lie, and they are screaming, "It's time to Free Willy."Sourceshttp://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/dec/11/SeaWorld-CEO-stepping-down/2/?#article-copyhttp://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/jan/26/seaworld-fourth-quarter-earnings-february/http://www.cbsnews.com/news/seaworld-continues-to-suffer-after-blackfish/

What’s A Graduating Economics Major to Do?

college-graduation.jpg

By Cole LennonGraduating from college often begs an important question: “Now what?”  Recently compiled research from the Georgetown Center for Education and the Workforce helps answer that question, particularly as it looks back on economic data on college graduates from 2009-2012.  Even as wages and labor market conditions have improved since 2012, the report still yields interesting information on salaries, returns on graduate education, and more.The most recent data on undergraduate economics majors in 2012 is an ideal place to start.  Recent graduates had an average salary of $47,000, which was also the 9th highest starting salary by major for this cohort.  It was also tied for the highest salary amongst both social science and business disciplines, with recent graduates in finance tying the amount of $47,000.  Adding experience also makes this data even more interesting, as experienced economics graduates made an average salary of $83,000.  This massive boost (something the report counts as 3 or more years in the labor force) is incredibly helpful to note: Experience really does pay off, in a sense.Graduate education is the next category to explore.  Recent graduate degree-holders in economics boasted an average salary of $75,000, making for a $28,000 boost in earnings from undergraduate to graduate (experience not included).  This jump is the 2nd highest amongst all majors, only being exceeded by a $30,000 earnings bump for computer science majors.  Still, experienced economics graduate degree-wielders got an average salary of $113,000.  This is yet another massive leap in terms of how much experience does play a role in how earnings increase.Other interesting factors to consider include age and the unemployment rates for each major, as they add another dimension to the salary data provided.  The questions, overall though, move from qualitative to quantitative.  “Now what?” is the prevailing question immediately after graduation, but “How much?” is sure to follow. – CLSources:https://cew.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/HardTimes2015-Report.pdfhttp://qz.com/347927/graduate-school-salary-increase/

Op-Ed: Give 'Em A Break Already

By Rob GelbIf any country is aware of the concept of tragedy, it would be Greece. Contrary to what students learn in their high school literature classes, the one major qualification for a tragic figure is acting in ignorance. With this financial crisis, acting in ignorance was the tragic flaw of the troubled hero: the Greek government did not realize the extent of the measures they would have to take in order to combat this financial conundrum. The void of competent leadership in Greece during the immediate aftermath of the late 2000s financial crisis put the country on the road to ruin. Greece’s demands that half of its debt be written off may seem extreme, but its critics fail to realize the extremity of the situation.Greece did not go far enough in austerity, and when they realized that, it was already too late. Look at America, arguably still recovering from the Great Recession of 2007-2009, which some economists worried would lead up to a crash worse than the Great Depression, with an unemployment rate of 28%. Greece is in many ways what America would have become if such nightmares came true. To make matters worse, the bailouts were not directed towards helping Greece’s economy recover, but to satisfy creditors at its expense. Only about 11% of this money went to the Greek government. While the creditors benefited in the short-run, Greece remains in the thick of one of the worst economic situations in Europe.Despite the Greek government's past mistakes, the steps it is taking now are much more effective at reducing its debt burden than it was a few years ago. They are standing down on anti-austerity measures. They are accepting the programs of the eurozone. Despite its adversarial campaign rhetoric, even Syriza is willing to reach a primary surplus. It has also expressed a willingness to reach primary surplus at the cost of some of its spending pledges. Michael Ball, portfolio manager at the $850-million money manager Weatherstone Capital Management, suggests investors should have more confidence in the Greek government: “I think people look at it and say, ‘The worst is behind us.’” Take pity on this greek tragedy, people.Editor’s Note: This piece is one of two op-eds framed around the question, “Are Greece’s Creditor’s Being Reasonable?”  It takes the negative position. To read the opposing view, please read “Time For Greece to Stop Passing the Buck" by Joe Kearns.Sourceshttp://bbc.in/1M37JT9http://on.wsj.com/18JmIFNhttp://nyti.ms/1DEBCok http://bit.ly/1BR13YS

Op-Ed: Time for Greece to Stop Passing the Buck

fa6803ea-97a5-435f-9c4c-c24ccb88856b-1020x612.jpeg

By Joe KearnsIt takes two to negotiate. The Greek government has won the misguided sympathy of Washington Post columnist Katrina vanden Heuvel. She claims that “Syriza is a pro-European party. It does not want to leave the EU. Its leader, Alexis Tsipras, says that it wants to honor Greece’s debts. But debt that cannot be repaid will not be repaid.” The premise of vanden Heuvel’s argument rests on the myth that it is inherently impossible for Greece to pay down its debts at current levels and the ruling Syriza Party has offered a reasonable compromise. The Greek government is casting its creditors—the International Monetary Fund, the European Central Bank, and the European Commission—in a negative light to portray itself as a victim. While some changes to the current debt agreement are sensible, the its insistence that creditors should write off half of its sovereign debt invalidates the idea that its demands are reasonable.Greece’s debt-servicing schedule is neither unusual nor unfair compared to the budget schedules of other European debtor nations in recent decades. Under the current agreement, Greece must run a budget surplus (before interest payments) of 4.5% of its GDP this year. As recently as 2013, debtor nations like Portugal, Italy, and Ireland paid 5%, 4.8%, and 4.4% of GDP in interest respectively. Creditors have already taken a 74% loss on their debt in real terms from a prior haircut, where the Greeks received several concessions of lower interest rates and extended loan maturities. Greece’s interest payments have already fallen from 7.7% of GDP in 2011 to 4.2% last year. According to the Greek government, they will eventually decline to just 2.2% of GDP in 2022. Far from getting a raw deal, Greece got a bargain.Although creditors should reject Greece’s demand to write off half of its debt, they should consider other reforms. To his credit, Irish Finance Minister Michael Noonan proposed additional reductions of interest rates and extended repayment dates. While creditors are open to reasonable concessions, the Syriza-led government has not reciprocated. In a seven-page letter to the Eurozone, the government even included policies that could raise costs, including a “basic income scheme” for retirees and an increased minimum wage. Apparently, meeting the other side halfway is overrated.Editor’s Note: This piece is one of two op-eds framed around the question, “Are Greece's Creditor's Being Reasonable?"  It takes the affirmative position. To read the opposing view, please read "Give 'Em A Break Already" by Rob Gelb.Sourceshttp://on.wsj.com/1Gfz8CVhttp://bloom.bg/1wdPfIqhttp://on.wsj.com/1DS5pil

Get Them to the Greek

By Camille MendozaWhat happens when a kid is not grounded anymore, but now his friends cannot go out to play? Greece is currently experiencing a similar situation, considering its neighbors are not playing ball. Its trade deficit reached a peak of 4 billion EUR in July 2008, making it highly dependent on its neighbors for imported goods. Because Greece shares a common currency with other Eurozone members, it had to suffer through the late 2000s recession without the ability to devalue the currency, which would have made exports more attractive. Even so, Greece was able to decrease the deficit to 1 billion EUR in December 2014 through aggressive austerity. Although this is a substantial improvement, the deficit has stayed at  its pre-financial crisis value for the past two years. Countries like Germany and Italy, two of Greece's top 5 export destinations, were inching towards recession. In other words, Greece finally decreased the trade deficit substantially, but the other European countries are now unable to play--or rather, trade--with Greece. It looks like Greece will have to sit alone in the sandbox.Sourceshttp://huff.to/1AV1vTmhttp://bit.ly/1Ncn2fC http://bit.ly/1wQlMnX

Waiting to Grexhale

picture2.png

By Kevin Grant McClernonInvestors breathed a sigh of relief early last week. Greece reached an eleventh hour agreement  Tuesday with its international creditors to secure €240 billion in continued bailout funding. Its willingness to push the envelope has roiled financial markets in the past month. The yield on Greek 10-year government bonds rose as high as 11.21% this month before settling at 9.24% after trading Thursday. An increase in bond yields indicates fears that Greece may not repay its debt. Greek bond investors have reason to worry – a 2012 debt restructuring shed the face value of Greek debt by 53.5%, reduced interest rates, and extended maturities. In all, the debt lost 74% of its overall value. International investors now hold €370 billion in Greek debt – a similar restructuring would cost them about €270 billion. The new agreement gives Greece four months to act. In the meantime, investors will hold their breath once again.Sourceshttp://bloom.bg/1stFtlmhttp://on.wsj.com/1Ee0jLWhttp://read.bi/1zUO02ihttp://on.wsj.com/1aJRjU6http://bit.ly/1M35O0K

On Losing the War

picture1.png

By Cole LennonIf economic booms and busts are like battles, Greece has surely lost the war.  Greece’s economy been in horrific conditions since 2010, and the damage is still ongoing.  Data from the World Bank reveals that Greece’s real GDP per capita has fallen from $26,861 (in U.S. dollars) in 2010 to $21,956 in 2013, the most recent full year available.  This is a massive 18.3% decrease in a key economic indicator, which suggests Greece’s problems have gotten worse. Additionally, European Commission data shows that Greece’s unemployment rate has gone from 10.8% in January 2010 to the most recent November 2014 rate of 25.9%.  The latter unemployment rate is higher than even the highest rate during the U.S.’s Great Depression.  It is evident that the Greeks have decisively lost crucial economic battles since 2010.  Given this data, the surprise now is not about the verdict.  The shock is that they are still not waving the white flag of surrender.Sourceshttp://bit.ly/1eRbn2Ehttp://bit.ly/1GMm0Tg

The Optimal Bundle Special Report on the Greek Sovereign Debt Crisis

greece-flags_2132212b.jpg

The Optimal Bundle is a student publication run by the Penn State Economics Association’s Print Education Subcommittee. It centers on a single economic topic covered in-depth from multiple perspectives.This edition of the Optimal Bundle features the Greek Sovereign Debt Crisis, following the decision by Greece's creditors to extend the current debt agreement by four months.This is an online version of the print edition of the Optimal Bundle.

Launch Optimal Bundle

Following the Crowd

oilwellinvestment920.jpg

By Kevin Grant McClernon

Last summer, I decided that I wanted to invest in the market. I knew the basic principle of ‘buy low, sell high’ and with that in mind, I set off looking for deals. I perused the WSJ and Bloomberg. I wanted to find a so-called ‘value pick’ – one that was fundamentally undervalued and that I could hold for a long time. Eventually, I found a couple good picks. Stocks were pretty jumpy this fall so I figured I could buy one quick after it had a rough day. But, every time I decided to buy, the markets seemed to reverse course and my ‘deal’ had vanished. I couldn’t keep up with the movement of the market. Everything that was hot one was day cold the next, it seemed.Then I found oil. It wasn’t too hard to find – it was a top story line all through the fall. But I figured trading commodities was only for the pros. I looked around and found there were hundreds of individual stocks related to oil and gas companies. And they were all taking a beating. I wondered why. By November, the market price of crude oil had fallen about 25% since its high in the summer. The price of a barrel of American oil as of November 21st was $78. I ran the math – there are 42 gallons of oil in a barrel – and found that it was selling wholesale for $1.78 per gallon. The price of gas at the pump near my house had been falling sluggishly by Thanksgiving to around $3.10. At those prices gas companies were profiting just under 50% per gallon sold. I knew gas margins were normally high, but that seemed almost monopolistic. My economics classes taught me that each of these gas stations could gain a large share of the local business if they cut prices beneath their competitors’.I sat in the car with my mom one day.“I’m gonna pull over and get gas,” she said.I interjected, “but your tank is half-full already.”“The price is too low not to take advantage.”Too low, I questioned.“Hold off on it,” I said. “Prices are gonna be below $3 sooner than you think.”“Whatever you say,” she mocked.We drove on.I had very little data to support my statement. Only articles I’d read about in the WSJ where business columnists worried that the US had out-produced demand and was headed for a big drop. My emotions kicked in. That sounds bad, I thought. And that’s when I decided I should buy.I wanted to invest in distressed, highly leveraged oil companies who would suffer the most from low oil prices. When the depressed prices began to cut into their margins, they’d have less cash with which to pay their debts. Default was a possibility. Or they’d get bought out. Oil companies with stronger balance sheets and strong cash flows could buy them out at bargain prices and pay off their debts.Thank goodness I didn’t. A couple buyouts have occurred (see Repsol S.A. and Talisman Energy), and some analysts have since jumped on my side. But since November 21, 2014 – the day I wanted to pull the trigger – prices have dropped another 33%. I would’ve bought very high.To understand why this happened, and why I couldn’t have foreseen it, I began to ask why exactly prices were falling so significantly. “Oversupply!” market experts cried out, “we’ve produced too much oil!” As the old adage goes, “pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered.” Energy companies expanded rapidly in the wake of the recession on the basis that oil would remain around $100 per barrel. As of August 2014, energy companies (oil and gas, etc.) had outstanding debts of roughly $350 billion – in the junk category alone. That’s a scary thought.Anyway, US oil production is booming, and global demand is cooling. That’s the story, at least. But when you look at the data – it just doesn’t hold up. Let’s look at a 2014 report from the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) detailing global oil supply and demand and make a judgment for ourselves.In 2013 global oil production was 90.90 million barrels per day. Global consumption was 91.24 million barrels per day. Then, the US surged and global oil production jumped in 2014 to 92.94 million barrels per day. Meanwhile, consumption grew to 92.13 million barrels per day. As of the end of 2014, daily supply exceeded demand by 800,000 barrels per day in a market that consumes more than 92 million every day. The world is producing .85% more oil than we’re consuming. That marginal “oversupply” has resulted in a nearly 60% drop in oil prices.It doesn’t add up. There are other factors influencing prices that don’t show up on a data set. What are they?Fear, anxiety, and uncertainty. As Chud likes to call it, animal spirits. The market reaction has as much – if not more – to do with people’s emotions than it does with fundamental economics. If traditional supply and demand can’t adequately explain the seismic shift in prices, behavioral economics might.Take Goldman Sachs for example. As recently as October 2014, the bank forecasted prices of Brent Crude to be $100/barrel for Q2 2015. Later that month, they changed their mind and lowered their forecasts to $85/barrel. Goldman, an investment bank with what one would believe to be almost ubiquitous fundamental information about oil supplies and demand, couldn’t even see this coming. When Goldman revised their forecast, they issued a statement. In it they said, “WTI could fall as low as $70 in the second quarter and Brent as low as $80, when oversupply would be the most pronounced, before returning to first-quarter levels.” They were dead wrong. They didn’t - they couldn’t - have predicted such a free fall. And they weren’t alone, other major investment banks with divisions devoted entirely to oil price speculation made the same error, though I use that term loosely.Well, what else happened? Why is the market panicking?On November 27th, 2014 the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, known as OPEC, held a meeting in Vienna to discuss the fall in prices. OPEC is headed by Saudi Arabia, the pre-eminent global oil supplier for the past 40 years. OPEC produces anywhere between 30 and 40% of world crude supply annually. The market waited anxiously for a response from the group on how they would react to the fall in prices. There was tension amongst the group members. Venezuela needs oil to trade for about $120/barrel to balance its government budget. They wanted to cut production. Saudi Arabia didn’t care about price. They were concerned with market share. The Americans were impeding on their territory and they were ready to defend it. They had a $750 billion cushion in currency reserves accumulated from godly high margins over the last 30 years. They’d learned their lesson since oil crashed below $10/barrel in the 1980s. They’d prepared for this.The market held its breath. Analysts said they would need to cut 1.5 million barrels/day to keep prices afloat. After six hours of congregation, the Saudis won out and OPEC would continue its current pace of drilling. Oil prices dropped 7% that day. They haven’t looked back since.OPEC’s stance was clear: they want to keep their market share and wipe out American oil producers. Saudi Arabia, the leader of OPEC, is willing to withstand low – even negative – profit margins as a result. Saudi Arabia’s state-owned producers bet they could ride out the storm longer than the private United States producers. In January, Saudi Arabia released a 2015 budget outline. The key statistic – they forecast a $38 billion deficit. In 2014, they ran a $54 billion surplus. A major reason? Total exports are expected to decline by 4.4%. Meanwhile, non-oil exports are expected to increase by 3%. They’re bracing for a significant reduction is oil revenues. Insert the price war.Reports have surfaced that Saudi Arabia is offering drastic price cuts in its exported oil to Europe and Asia. They’re selling oil as low as $4.10 below the benchmark price, nearly 10%.There is no real question that there is a competition – some call it a war – to hold onto market share and outlast competitors in the oil market. Saudi Arabia and OPEC are betting that they can drive out US producers and eventually get supply back to a ‘healthy’ level, where the market price will stay at the elevated levels we’ve been used to. The upstart Americans are a nuisance – and a real threat - to the stronghold OPEC’s had on the market for decades. Neither side is willing to give in. Production in both areas is expected to continue to grow through 2015.So, what is driving the oil prices down? The confusion that arises from all of this hoopla. Investors just want to know. They want to know who’s gonna win. They want to know if the Saudis will stay on top. They want to know if the Americans are for real. They want to know how long this battle will last. Uncertainty in financial markets creates hysteria. It produces emotional responses. It drives people to make judgment calls on the spot that may not be fully informed. And passive investors get caught up in the mix. It’s biology that says we like to follow the crowd.Take, for example, the tulip craze of the 1630s in Holland. Through pure speculation, tulip bulbs became so vastly overpriced that Dutch citizens were trading their properties and life savings for a single bulb. Eventually, the market realized its folly. The price of a tulip reverted back towards its value and subsequently crashed. Some people lost everything. Why would anyone trade a farm for a flower?We humans are not always as rational as we think. We tend to make hasty, uninformed decisions.  As oil continues its slump, some investors are yelling “buy, buy, buy!” Some are fleeing the market with their tails between their legs, selling all they’ve got and living to fight another day.It’s hard to judge how the price will move in the future. It’s very low right now – but we said the same thing $30 ago. Will it continue to fall? I don’t know. But as I wait, I’m observing people’s emotions just as closely as the facts. The headlines and the numbers may tell different tales.Sourceshttp://www.gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspxhttp://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-08-26/leveraged-debt-exceeds-2-trillion-in-repression-credit-marketshttp://dealbook.nytimes.com/2015/01/11/as-oil-prices-fall-banks-serving-the-energy-industry-brace-for-a-jolt/https://www.dmr.nd.gov/oilgas/stats/historicalbakkenoilstats.pdfhttp://www.cnbc.com/id/102122961http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/27/news/opec-oil-prices/http://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanvardi/2015/01/05/saudi-arabias-750-billion-bet-drives-brent-oil-below-54/2/https://www.mof.gov.sa/English/DownloadsCenter/Budget/Statement%20Details%20(PDF).pdfhttp://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-10/iran-s-heavy-crude-price-set-at-3-66-bbl-discount-for-march

‘Tis the Season (For Low Quality Films)

movie-theater-inside-amc-pacific.jpg

By Rob Gelb

Think about your favorite film, or films. Now, look up at what month it came out during the year it came to theaters. Chances are it was not in January.In the film community, the months of January and even February are more often than not recognized as a “dump period.” The films are typically of low quality, and are not expected to succeed nearly as much as films released a few months (if not a few weeks) prior to “Happy New Year!” To quote Dr. Evil, “It's easy to kill a movie. Just move it to January.”So why January and February, of all months?There are a few reasons, and they trace back to both the movie executive and the movie patron.For starters, there is the timing. Oscar season has already begun at this point, and movies that have not premiered or been released until past December are no longer eligible for nomination. Furthermore, films that do get nominated for awards often are re-released in theaters, capitalizing on the buzz that the film is getting. It is easy to say that most moviegoers at that time are more interested in the Oscar nominated films than the films being released for the first time. Studios are aware of this, and so they play it safe.What playing it safe means is releasing movies studios suspect are of low quality. The way it works is this: movies are screened to a test audience prior to setting up a release date. These audience reaction help decide where the film should be placed. In many cases, well received movies are placed between August and December, while poorly received movies end up in January or February. It is a way for them to cut their losses with films they are worried will bomb.Often they are right. Films on average are rated poorly compared to any other months of the year. A quick check on the website Rotten Tomatoes is all you need to get my point.At the same time, and maybe as a consequence, fewer people go to see movies in January. In fact, some years the box office will report that the total gross revenue will be under $1 billion for the entire month. To put that into perspective, some of the highest grossing films of a given year have individually made more money than all of those January films put together.There just is not the market or audience available at this point, and here is why. After Christmas has ended, chances are people have spent their fair share of disposable income on holiday presents. In fact, Consumer Reports indicated that people on average overspend by 16%, especially when it comes to using a credit card. People want to save, and there is invariably a dip in domestic consumption starting at the beginning of the year. The cold weather does not help either, as people are less likely to going to movie theaters, preferring to stay inside and watching Netflix in the comfort of their home. I know I would.Not all of this is set in stone. There are plenty of exceptions to the rule. Many Clint Eastwood films do very well, even when released in January-American Sniper is one of them, taking in over $300 million in gross revenue last month alone. Meanwhile, take a film like Silence of the Lambs. Released in the middle of February, which is still part of the dump period, it was a box office smash, and would go on to win the Academy Award for Best Picture 12 months after it first came to theaters. At the same time though, think long and hard about whether or not the other dozen or so movies that are part of that dump period group every year are worth the money.Personally, I almost never see a movie in theaters between December and March. Thank goodness for Netflix.Sourceshttp://www.zimbio.com/Beyond+the+Box+Office/articles/bggSWsnkxIY/January+Worst+Movie+Monthhttp://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=4015http://www.wisebread.com/dealing-with-post-holiday-credit-card-debthttp://www.statepress.com/2015/01/19/post-oscar-nomination-blues-lead-to-january-movie-season-slump/

Nuclear vs. Solar: Charting the Fight of the Future

solar-energy-panels-720.jpg

By Cole Lennon

Economists have long been bickering over whether nuclear or solar power would win out and become the designated energy of the future.  The fight, apparently, is already being called.  Solar is the declared winner.  The battle for nuclear vs. solar looks set to finish.Solar energy makes much more sense from an economic standpoint because it has a superior estimated return on investment. The estimated return on investment (EROI) for nuclear is hardly agreed upon, but standard estimates range from 5:1 to a 15:1 return.  The mean estimate in recent research is 14:1, providing a huge boost on average to those who opted to invest.  In 2010, this return exceeded shale, ethanol, biodiesel, and solar.  Many issues, however, lurk beneath these numbers that solar will use to its advantage.The first issue concerns both cost and scalability.  Installing one nuclear plant is estimated to cost about $10 billion.  This large cost can only be met by extraordinarily large companies and titanic subsidies for smaller companies.  Solar projects win out in terms of cost and scale.  Standard projects for houses only cost thousands of dollars, not billions.  It is far less costly and more easily scalable to build new sets of solar panels instead of an entire new nuclear plant.A second issue is the amount of growth in each industry.  Nuclear usage has been flat and is set to decline in rich countries. This trend did not start suddenly either.  Nuclear’s operable worldwide capacity has been hovering around 350 GWe (gigawatts of electricity) since 1994.  Costs of actually making nuclear energy today are also extraordinarily variable, as many are unsure of the future of this energy source.Solar energy today is experiencing incredible growth.  Photovoltaic solar—one of two major types, and the kind requiring solar panels—grew 38% last year and is now at worldwide capacity of 138 GWe.  This growth does not show signs of stopping either.  China alone invested to make 13 GWe more of solar in 2013.  Worldwide investment in solar was also over $113 billion in 2013, more than any other power source.  Solar energy, like most energy sources, still takes over a year for production to reach full capacity, but this boom in solar is eclipsing nuclear power’s stagnation.Stop the fight.  This one’s over.  Solar has won this one handily.Sourceshttp://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21639020-renewables-are-no-longer-fad-fact-life-supercharged-advances-power?fsrc=scn/tw_ec/we_make_our_ownhttp://noahpinionblog.blogspot.jp/2015/02/what-is-eroi-of-nuclear-power.htmlhttp://www.roboticscaucus.org/ENERGYPOLICYCMTEMTGS/Nov2012AGENDA/documents/DFID_Report1_2012_11_04-2.pdfhttp://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/20120310_nuclear_power.pdfhttp://www.epia.org/index.php?eID=tx_nawsecuredl&u=0&file=/uploads/tx_epiapublications/44_epia_gmo_report_ver_17_mr.pdf&t=1424029062&hash=2a7909267b259c98ef3f1a4113f94a23487c404ahttp://noahpinionblog.blogspot.jp/2015/01/nuclear-will-die-solar-will-live.html

Lessons from the Marshmallow Experiment

marshmellow-test.jpg

By Joe Kearns

What could a marshmallow possibly suggest about a child’s future? Quite a lot, actually. Psychologist Walter Mischel’s Stanford marshmallow experiment and follow-up experiments demonstrated that the ability to delay gratification at a young age is positively correlated with success in a variety of educational, health, and other measures. This correlation has substantial implications for economists who attempt to understand irrational decision-making.Mischel conducted his experiment at the Bing Nursery School at Stanford University in 1972, where boys and girls ranging from 3 to 5 years old were the subjects. Experimenters instructed the children to sit a table for 15 minutes with a marshmallow in front of them and promised them a second marshmallow if they did not eat the first. When experimenters followed up with the children many years later, the children who had delayed gratification and waited for the second marshmallow generally had higher SAT scores, lower levels of substance abuse, and a lower, healthier body mass index. The implication of this experiment is that the cognitive ability to delay gratification helps individuals accomplish life goals.A new experiment incorporated an additional variable: the child’s perception of adults as reliable. The experiment conducted by University of Rochester researchers conditioned children to trust or distrust them by promising them a new box of art supplies prior to the marshmallow portion of the experiment and they either followed through on the promise or reneged on it. Only one of the children interacting with an “unreliable” adult waited the full fifteen minutes, while nine who interacted with a “reliable” one waited that time. This suggests that the social interaction of children with adults who influence them, particularly parents or teachers, conditions them to decide whether or not delayed gratification is worthwhile. Mischel refutes the notion that self-control is genetically deterministic, arguing that “the genome can be as malleable as we once believed only environments could be.”These experiments together shed light on how individuals make decisions which seem irrational. This is particularly valuable for economists who examine how the average American with a credit card has almost $16,000 in debt or why the majority of American retirees turn down annuity payments in favor of a lump-sum payment that could run out in their life-times. There are countless economic decisions all individuals face when the temptation to eat the marshmallow exists. The ability to resist is sheer rationality, but it is not the whole of what it means to be human.Sourceshttp://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/10/16/the_marshmallow_study_revisited_kids_will_delay_gratifcation_if_they_trust.htmlhttp://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21623573-walter-mischel-test-became-his-lifes-work-desire-delayedhttp://www.nber.org/papers/w18575http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/money101/lesson9/

Op-Ed: Don't Forget the Animal Spirits

article-1056351-02adb2d400000578-800_468x286.jpg

By Kevin Grant McClernon

U.S. oil production is booming and global demand is cooling. That is the story, at least. But when you look at the data – it just does not hold up. As of the end of 2014, daily supply exceeded demand by 800,000 barrels per day in a market that consumes more than 92 million every day. The world is producing only .85% more oil than we are consuming. Are we really to believe that such a minimal “oversupply” has resulted in a nearly 60% drop in oil prices? If traditional supply and demand cannot adequately explain the seismic shift in prices, behavioral economics might.

Daily Production Consumption +/- (+ is excess)
2013 90.90 mm 91.24 mm  - .34 mm
2014 92.94 mm 92.13 mm    .81 mm

If the numbers do not add up, there must be other exogenous factors influencing prices. What are they?Fear, anxiety, and uncertainty - as Professor “Chud” Chuderewicz would say, animal spirits. The market reaction has as much – if not more – to do with people’s emotions than it does with fundamental economics. Investors just want information. They want to know who is going to win. They want to know if Saudi Arabia will stay on top. They want to know if America is for real. They want to know how long this battle will last. Uncertainty in financial markets creates hysteria. It produces emotional responses. It drives people to make judgment calls on the spot that may not be fully informed. And passive investors get caught up in the mix. It is psychology that says we like to follow the crowd.Sometimes our “fight-or-flight” reactions get the best of us. But maybe we should just look at the fundamentals. Does this “oversupply” of less than 1% really justify the wild drop-off we’re witnessing? Or are we just scared?Editor’s Note: This piece is one of two op-eds framed around the question, “Do Market Fundamentals Explain the Oil Price Decline?”  It takes the negative position. To read the opposing view, please read "Supply and Demand Are Guilty Until Proven Innocent" by Camille Mendoza. Sourceshttp://bit.ly/1mKT7dFhttp://1.usa.gov/ZmwTudhttp://1.usa.gov/ZmwTud

Op-Ed: Supply and Demand Are Guilty Until Proven Innocent

anacortes_refinery_31911.jpg

When it comes to the reasoning behind falling oil prices, there is only guilty until proven innocent. As crude oil prices float around $50, it is important to consider what caused this 50% decline from less than a year ago in the first place. While consumers in oil-importing countries rejoice at lower gas prices, Venezuelan economist José Toro Hardy worries about the reasons behind the sharp decline. Hardy identified the 2 key reasons: slowing global demand and a surplus of oil, brought in part by increased American production. Supply and demand are driving the market. It is simply basic economics.The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) reported that it expects global demand for its crude oil to fall in 2015 to 28.92 million barrels per day (bpd)--the lowest level in decades. This would cause a surplus of over 1 million bpd in 2015. An easy fix is to cut output, yet Saudi Arabia is urging fellow members to combat the growth in U.S. shale oil, thus making oil prices plunge even further. As OPEC members refuse to decrease their production, the supply remains high and prices remain low. Thus, it is inaccurate to suggest that the excess supply of oil is irrelevant to falling oil prices. Fracking (the process of drilling and injecting fluid into the ground at a high pressure to release natural gas inside) has increased in the United States by 3 million barrels a day. As a result, the U.S. has reduced its oil imports by nearly 30%, so traditional suppliers like Nigeria are not exporting to the U.S. And the U.S. is not the only eager country! Brazil and Russia are pumping oil at record levels. With figures like these, it makes no sense to minimize the role of either increasing oil supply or decreasing oil demand.There is no doubt that supply of oil and dismal demand are to blame for the plummeting prices. U.S. production of shale oil is increasing and OPEC members are attempting to outlast this production. Supply and demand are guilty. Case closed.Editor’s Note: This piece is one of two op-eds framed around the question, “Do Market Fundamentals Explain the Oil Price Decline?”  It takes the affirmative position. To read the opposing view, please read "Don't Forget the Animal Spirits" by Kevin Grant McClernon.Sourceshttp://bit.ly/1AiYPxjhttp://read.bi/1ABGejxhttp://bloom.bg/1ESPj8y

(We Are Not) Drilling Our Own Grave

picture1.png

By Joe Kearns

When you are in a hole, keep drilling. That notion seems illogical for the oil and gas industry. Brent crude prices have fallen by more than 50% since June 2014, yet there is merit to the strategy for some firms. Despite suffering declines in profit last year, Exxon Mobil and Chevron can afford to produce more oil because they are large firms involved in both the drilling and refining stages. This means they are less sensitive to price shocks than their smaller competitors. The oil supply glut has reduced industry demand and, consequently, the cost of services from firms who work for oil and gas companies. Eight of Exxon’s large projects came on-line last year, and there are more to come. Meanwhile, Chevron intends to expand production up to 20% by 2017. Production from these firms’ projects will last for decades, so short-term losses will likely amount to long-term gains. These companies would be foolish not to twist the knife while their competitors are wounded.Sourceshttp://abcn.ws/19tKQMHhttp://nyti.ms/1L8e3bnhttp://onforb.es/1zlS1wh