Washington Post: The Winners and Losers of a Strong Dollar

By Jonnelle Marte

If the dollar continues to appreciate, this would spell good news for exporters and U.S. consumers as companies at home battle it out over the American consumer.

Read the rest of the article here…

NYT: Who Will Rule the Oil Market?

By

A look at how, quietly and unconventionally, the U.S. has taken on the role swing-producer as Saudi Arabia and other OPEC members have given up production cuts in favor of protecting market share.

Read the rest of the article here…

 

WSJ: Déjà Vu: Mounting Worries Hit Stocks

By E.S. BROWNING

Investors are starting the year as they did in 2014: pushing U.S. stocks lower in a season when stocks usually rise. They are optimistic for the longer term, but that hasn’t kept people from selling now.

Read the rest of the article here…

NYTimes: Trying to Solve the Great Wage Slowdown

By DAVID LEONHARDT

An international commission, describing income stagnation as a defining challenge, offers proposals meant to influence the political debate. The U.S. has fallen behind other developed countries in regard to middle class income levels and the key to improvement is better access to early education and an income redistribution strategy that helps the lower-to-middle classes.

Read the rest of the article here…

NYT: Target-Date Funds Can Pose Complexities

By TIM GRAY

This article discusses the merits of target-date funds as they have become increasingly popular with investors. Focusing on the negative aspects of the funds, the article states they can obscure the complexities of risk and return and that there is really no standard as to how these funds may invest, creating markedly different funds in the same “target-date” category. A study conducted in 2013 found that these funds accounted for a third of new assets flowing into mutual fund companies offering them.

Read the rest of the article here…

2015 Global Asset Allocation Review

Aureus is pleased to release its 2015 global asset allocation review. As always, our analysis combines critical interpretations of global market factors and asset classes, with a particular focus on the following:

How Hard Do Company Founders Really Work?

After the piece I wrote last year about never going out to play golf with clients, colleagues or friends, and deciding that I should do that once every few weeks this summer, I realized that I only left work early once, at 4:00, to play 9 holes after work.  I began to think about why I couldn’t get myself out of the office.  Here are my conclusions.

HBR: How Hard Do Company Founders Really Work?

Originally published on Harvard Business Review

NYTimes: Market Turmoil Will Test the Post-Crisis Financial System

Banks are stronger today because they use less borrowed money to finance trading and lending, but they still rely on billions of dollars in short-term loans that could dry up in a panic.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/12/16/market-turmoil-will-test-the-post-crisis-financial-system/?smid=nytcore-ipad-share&smprod=nytcore-ipad

 

Market Turmoil Will Test the Post-Crisis Financial System

Drilling for oil in North Dakota. A sell-off in junk bonds could hurt some energy companies.
Drilling for oil in North Dakota. A sell-off in junk bonds could hurt some energy companies. CreditAndrew Burton/Getty Images

Washington has been trying to bolster the financial system for the last five years so it can deal with mayhem in the markets. The turmoil this week will test those rebuilding efforts.

Investors, after months of piling into risky markets in search of returns, are now stampeding out.

In recent weeks, they have dumped junk bonds issued by American companies, particularly energy companies that have borrowed heavily to exploit the shale oil boom. A steep slide in the price of oil could now cause some of the companies to default, analysts say.

The most dangerous pain, however, is occurring abroad. Russia has a full-blown currency crisis, caused partly by the oil price decline. And oil’s move has fed fears about other countries. Turkey’s currency reached a record low on Tuesday, and Brazil’s currency has weakened sharply in recent days. Venezuela’s government bonds have plunged to levels that indicate that investors think a default is probable.

Such difficulties echo the crisis that buffeted markets in the developing world in 1998, when Russia actually defaulted on debt denominated in rubles. And the global convulsions of that year infiltrated the financial system of the United States, even though the country’s economy was performing well, as it is now.

Back then, contagion made its way onto Wall Street through an enormous hedge fund called Long-Term Capital Management that nearly collapsed after making bets way beyond its means.

The parallels with 1998 have led investors and regulators to ask if any similarly dangerous weak points exist today. And if they do, the question is whether the big banks are sturdy enough to bear the shocks. For the moment, many specialists say the system is sufficiently girded.

“This doesn’t threaten the banks and other financial institutions because they are considerably stronger than they were a few years ago,” said Donald Kohn, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institutionand a governor of the Federal Reserve during the 2008 financial crisis.

The banks are stronger today because they rely less on borrowed money to finance their trading and lending. And the Wall Street banks are not lending as much money to hedge funds and other investors to make highly speculative bets that could be vulnerable right now.

Also, the current problems overseas are largely in countries where American banks have limited activities. This puts global banks in a significantly better position than in 2011 and 2012, when the existence of the euro was threatened and investors were fleeing from Europe’s banks.

“The number of connections between the U.S. and European financial sectors are certainly much deeper than the connections between the U.S. and Russian financial sectors,” said Timothy A. Duy, a professor of economics at the University of Oregon. He cautions, however, that some European banks are more exposed to Russia.

Still, the big banks continue to rely on billions of dollars in short-term loans that could dry up in a panic, causing the financial system to freeze up. And even if that type of financing holds up, banks and hedge funds can be caught out when markets move in wild and unexpected ways. For instance, Jefferies, the New York investment bank, on Tuesday reported a 73 percent decline in fourth-quarter revenue in its unit that trades bonds. Some of that decline came from marking down securities that it holds.

The markets are also tripping big investors. Saba Capital, the hedge fund of Boaz Weinstein, has performed poorly this year.

Big trading banks like JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs will report their fourth-quarter results in January.

Officials of the Federal Reserve met on Tuesday and will continue to meet on Wednesday to discuss monetary policy. They will most likely debate whether the upsets in the markets will harm the economy. The tumble in junk bonds, for instance, could close a way some companies finance their operations, which could lead them to cut production and employment. That threat hangs heavily over the energy company borrowers, which have contributed significantly to recent job growth.

But Mr. Kohn said he did not think the market conditions were bad enough to persuade the Fed to deviate from its path of slowly tightening monetary policy.

“My expectation is that they would see this as a downside risk, but not necessarily as a central tendency that would push off tightening,” he said.

Some investors are more concerned about geopolitical risks undermining economic confidence. The plunging oil price, for instance, could create even harder economic times for countries like Russia and Iran. A political eruption in a large oil-producing country could act as a heavy drag elsewhere. Geopolitical instability could undermine the efforts of Europe and Japan to get out of the doldrums.

But low oil prices might also constrain governments that have stoked instability.

The latest instability may have other positive effects. It may turn out to be a mini-1998 that expunges some of the froth from markets that, until recently, seemed to defy gravity.

“Investors should react to markets that are riskier than they anticipated,” Mr. Kohn said. “Some adjustment is justified.”

A version of this article appears in print on 12/17/2014, on page B1 of the NewYork edition with the headline: Test for Post-Crisis Financial System.

Flu Vaccine and the "Backfire Effect"

This is an interesting study from the Washington Post – the author speaks about the effects observed when the CDC attempts to correct myths about the flu virus.

This article was originally printed in the Washington Post on December 8th, 2014.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/12/08/heres-how-irrational-flu-vaccine-deniers-are/

 

By Chris Mooney December 8  

In this Nov. 27, 2014 photo, Walgreens pharmacist Chris Nguyen gives a free flu shot to Sandra Bazaldua in Houston, Texas. The flu vaccine may not be very effective this winter, according to U.S. health officials who worry this may lead to more serious illnesses and deaths. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued an advisory to doctors about the situation Wednesday, Dec. 3, 2014. (AP Photo/Houston Chronicle, Gary Coronado)

It’s flu season, a time when health authorities loudly advise getting a flu shot (even if, yes, this year’s shot may be somewhat less effective than in other years). But unfortunately — as with all things vaccine related — it’s also the season for misinformation, especially among the subset of the U.S. public that is worried about vaccines or that, erroneously, believes them to be somehow dangerous.

In particular, one myth about the flu vaccine — widely enough held that the FDA and CDC have tried to directly debunk it — is that you can actually get the flu from getting the shot. The reality, of course, is that the shot contains viruses that have been inactivated and can’t make you sick. Nonetheless, the prevalence of this false belief may partly explain why flu vaccine rates are quite low — only about 42 percent among U.S. adults.

So what do you do to rid people’s heads of myths like these, and get them to vaccinate? Unfortunately, suggests a new study, telling them the straight up facts may not work — it may even backfire.

The new study is by Dartmouth’s Brendan Nyhan and the University of Exeter’s Jason Reifler, two longtime scholarly chroniclers of people’s irrationality when it comes to accepting facts that challenge their belief systems — a phenomenon that is pervasive in public debates about science, health, the environment, and much more. Nyhan and Reifler have previously documented a so-called “backfire effect” in studies of conservative views about George W. Bush’s tax cuts and the Iraq war — where providing a factual correction of false statements attributed to Bush in a newspaper article led conservatives to believe them more strongly afterwards . Moreover, in a study last year, they similarly showed that a variety of pro-vaccine messages not only failed to sway opponents of vaccinations, but some messages actually decreased their intent to vaccinate or made their wrong beliefs worse.

Now, in their new study in the journal Vaccine, Nyhan and Reifler present test subjects with messages about the flu vaccine. One message (based onlanguage from the CDC) directly debunked the idea that the vaccine can give you the flu. Another message (also based on CDC language) simply described how dangerous the flu can be. Finally, there was a control group, in which subjects didn’t hear a message about the flu at all, but were simply asked (as were all participants) about their views on how risky vaccines are, whether the flu vaccine can cause you to get sick, and whether they intended to get a flu shot.

There was some bad news right off the bat: Fully 43 percent of people believed that getting the flu vaccine can actually cause you to get the flu. When it came to hearing a correction of this myth, though, results were a little better:  The correction did seem to make people less likely to believe the myth about the dangers of the vaccine — and even did so among those research subjects who were most fearful of vaccine side effects in general.

However, when the researchers then examined subjects’ likeliness to vaccinate themselves against the flu, they found — disturbingly — that among these vaccine fearful individuals, hearing a debunking of flu vaccine risks actually led to them being less likely to say they planned on getting the flu vaccine. That’s right — the CDC’s language was “actually counterproductive among the group that we’d be most concerned about from a public health perspective, which is the people who are most hesitant about vaccines,” explains Dartmouth’s Nyhan.

Here’s a figure from the study, showing this effect — the vaccine hesitant people are on the right (“High side effects concern”), and the “Correction” group is the one in which subjects heard the flu vaccine myth actively debunked:

In sum, it looks like yet another backfire effect!

So –what’s up with this? Or more precisely, how can vaccine skeptics simultaneously be swayed by good and accurate pro-vaccine information, and yet simultaneously become less likely to get vaccinated? The result, says Nyhan, suggests that factual misperceptions about vaccines — like the myth that the flu vaccine causes the flu –“are more a consequence of people’s mixed or negative attitudes towards vaccines, rather than the cause. So when we challenge one misperception, people may simply bring to mind other misconceptions or concerns that they have, and remind themselves of their more general concern about vaccines in the first place.”

In light of recent revelations that the flu vaccine may be less effective than usual this season, public health authorities already have their  hands full trying to explain why people should, nonetheless, go out and get a flu shot. The latest research suggests they’re not going to get a lot of help from the human mind.

WSJ: Can Money Buy You Happiness?

By ANDREW BLACKMAN

It’s an age-old question: Can money buy happiness?

Over the past few years, new research has given us a much deeper understanding of the relationship between what we earn and how we feel. Economists have been scrutinizing the links between income and happiness across nations, and psychologists have probed individuals to find out what really makes us tick when it comes to cash.

Read the rest of the article here…