Future of Financial innovation

There has been a lot of talk about financial innovation being bad for general populace. Economist blogs about it Financial innovation in the rearview mirror quoting Tyler Cowen and Felix Salmon. This pulls up a paralled to pharma industry in my mind.

Just like we have drug testing labs for pharma companies, we need labs and regulation for finance innovations too. In a sense, sub-prime was a drug being directly tested on population. The result is predictably disastrous. The Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA) could take up such a role. Then, if pharma is any indication, we will have lot more innovation in the near future.

Pharma industry also created higher cost structure to foster innovation. The regulatory burden along with pseudo-barriers in the name of intellectual property created unaffordable costs. The opportunity before the CFPA is to set the benchmark for simplied, easy to athere but difficult to cheat, low cost regulatory structure. CFPA, all eyes are on you!

Chris Anderson explains Free / Freenium

A lot of people get confused with Chris Anderson's book free. Particularly because his book is free. Here he explains the concept in details. A fantastic read about changes in business models.
Charlie Rose - A conversation with Chris Anderson of Wired Magazine

A re-polarization in Risk Structure of Investors

Tadas Viskanta notes how hedge funds have survived the current crisis in his post The curious incident of hedge funds during the financial crisis Abnormal Returns. This refreshes an old idea I had earlier about polarisation of investor companies based on risks.

Capital providing institutions were divided into two based on this. Banks (low risk) and Equity investors (higher risk). But now we have finer risk classifications. The resultant business models were, in a crude way, spread across the risk spectrum. The downside was the risk demarcation became a little (a lot?) fuzzy. Large banks too moved towards higher risk assets (CDO etc) and were burnt. Equity investors came with low-risk schemes that have mostly lost money. The money-making strategies in current market situations align better with clear risk demarcation. That's why possibly hedge fund survive.

The investment rules getting too tight is basically a risk reduction strategy. It will be wiser, possibly, to remove constraints on fund managers. Money managers who manage their own book may be better off with the flexibility (provided their reading of markets is correct of course).

China led recovery?

The largest consumers, US, EU and Japan are spent. US has domestic and corporate indebtedness. Japan still languishes from the lost decade. EU members sit across the spectrum between US style indebtedness to that of 1980s Japan. Only country who has the right cards is China. It is significantly big and fast enough to turn the course of the history. So then will China play its hand right?

Well, it is not inspiring any confidence to say the least. Micheal Pettis points to Notes on a real estate trip in China where we realize that Chinese policy of investment driven demand is banging against the wrong wall. China is looking for the final buyer that we discussed earlier.

Meanwhile, I notice market feedback, logic structures and arguments are regaining 2007 flavour. This definitely does not auger well for any of us. It is as if markets have noted Roubini near term possibilities but are still ignoring Taleb's long term solutions. (Taleb has attacked the root causes VAR, (ill-applied) probability theory, portfolio theory and algorithm trading framed on these.)

Where is the Greenspan Model?

I remember that there is a Greenspan model that Alan Greenspan used to determine if markets were fairly valued. It pointed to over-valuation in 1998 and again in 2004. Where is that model now and what is it indicating given the current earnings scenario?