In Search of the Perfect Investment

Latest favorite shorts: I’m trying to put the list in the right column, but haven’t figured how to yet. Here’s the latest:

Best Buy (BBY)
Caterpillar (CAT)
Deckers (DECK)
Dell (DELL)
Eaton Vance (EV)
Facebook (FB)
First Solar (FSLR)
Fossil (FOSL)
Game Stop (GME)
Goldman Sachs (GS)
JC Penney (JCP)
JPMorgan (JPM)
Morgan Stanley (MS)
Research in Motion (RIMM)
RadioShack (RSH)
Research In Motion (RIMM)
Supervalu (SVU)
Terex  (TEX)

In this market, shorts go down faster than longs go up. Hence it’s a good idea to have some shorts. Notice my use of the word “some.” Don’t sell this whole “portfolio.” And keep tight stops. CHK was a good short until Carl Icahn bought a piece piece of Chesapeake and now the market thinks CHK is going through the roof.

Facebook is building a smartphone. It will compete with Apple’s iPhone. And pigs will fly. Read more about this insanity (or desperation) here.

James Surowieck from the New Yorker on The Fairness Trap: I like his work. No one knows what will happen if, and when Greece leaves the Euro and goes back to the drachma. I suspect it will be less painful than everyone expects.

With Europe’s economic woes dominating the headlines once more, it’s hard not to think of Yogi Berra’s dictum “It’s déjà vu all over again.” As usual, the turmoil centers on Greece, which is in its fifth year of recession and struggling beneath a colossal debt load. This year, in exchange for drastic austerity measures, Greece’s government agreed to an aid package (its second) with the European Union and the International Monetary Fund, totalling $174 billion. But three weeks ago furious Greek voters tossed the ruling parties out of office; attempts to form a coalition government failed, and new elections are scheduled for next month. Now Greek politicians are talking tough about renegotiating, but the E.U., led by Germany, which is the largest contributor to the bailout, says that there will be no more money for Greece if it doesn’t live up to its promises. So policymakers are seriously discussing a so-called Grexit-in which Greece would default on its debts and abandon the euro.

This isn’t an outcome that anyone wants. Even though a devalued currency would make Greece’s exports cheaper and attract tourists, it would do so at a terrible price, destroying huge amounts of wealth and seriously harming the country’s G.D.P. It would be costly for the rest of Europe, too. Greece owes almost half a trillion euros, and containing the damage would likely require the recapitalization of banks, continent-wide deposit insurance (to prevent bank runs), and more aid to Portugal, Spain, and Italy, which seem to be the next countries in line to default. That’s a very high price to pay for getting rid of Greece, and much more expensive than letting it stay.

Rationally, then, this standoff should end with a compromise-relaxing some austerity measures, and giving Greece a little more aid and time to reform. And we may still end up there. But the catch is that Europe isn’t arguing just about what the most sensible economic policy is. It’s arguing about what is fair. German voters and politicians think it’s unfair to ask Germany to continue to foot the bill for countries that lived beyond their means and piled up huge debts they can’t repay. They think it’s unfair to expect Germany to make an open-ended commitment to support these countries in the absence of meaningful reform. But Greek voters are equally certain that it’s unfair for them to suffer years of slim government budgets and high unemployment in order to repay foreign banks and richer northern neighbors, which have reaped outsized benefits from closer European integration. The grievances aren’t unreasonable, on either side, but the focus on fairness, by making it harder to reach any kind of agreement at all, could prove disastrous.

The basic problem is that we care so much about fairness that we are often willing to sacrifice economic well-being to enforce it. Behavioral economists have shown that a sizable percentage of people are willing to pay real money to punish people who are taking from a common pot but not contributing to it. Just to insure that shirkers get what they deserve, we are prepared to make ourselves poorer. Similarly, a famous experiment known as the ultimatum game-one person offers another a cut of a sum of money and the second person decides whether or not to accept-shows that people will walk away from free money if they feel that an offer is unfair. Thus, even when there’s a solution that would leave everyone better off, a fixation on fairness can make agreement impossible.

You can see this in the way the U.S. has dealt with the foreclosure crisis. Plenty of economists recommended giving mortgage relief to underwater homeowners, but that has not happened on any meaningful scale, in part because so many voters see it as unfair to those who are still obediently paying their mortgages. Mortgage relief would almost certainly have helped all homeowners, not just underwater ones-by limiting the spillover impact of foreclosures on house prices-but, still, the idea that some people would be getting something for nothing irritated voters.

The fairness problem is exacerbated by the fact that our definition of what counts as fair typically reflects what the economists Linda Babcock and George Loewenstein call a “self-serving bias.” You’d think that the Greeks’ resentment of austerity might be attenuated by the recognition of how much money Germany has already paid and how much damage was done by rampant Greek tax dodging. Or Germans might acknowledge that their devotion to low inflation makes it much harder for struggling economies like Greece to start growing again. Instead, the self-serving bias leads us to define fairness in ways that redound to our benefit, and to discount information that might conflict with our perspective. This effect is even more pronounced when bargainers don’t feel that they are part of the same community-a phenomenon that psychologists call “social distance.” The pervasive rhetoric that frames the conflict in terms of national stereotypes-hardworking, frugal Germans versus frivolous, corrupt Greeks, or tightfisted, imperialistic Germans versus freewheeling, independent Greeks-makes it all the more difficult to reach a reasonable compromise.

From the perspective of society as a whole, concern with fairness has all kinds of benefits: it limits exploitation, promotes meritocracy, and motivates workers. But in a negotiation where neither side can have what it really wants, and where the least bad solution is as good as it gets, worrying too much about fairness can be suicidal. To move Europe away from the brink, voters and politicians on all sides need to stop asking themselves what’s fair and start asking themselves what’s possible. 

An industry for your kids? Ten years ago they re-lamped the traffic lights every year. Then GE introduced a traffic signal bulb — an incandescent bulb with a thicker filament, but lower light output and they relamped every two years.  Then came LEDs. And now they will re-lamp New York City every 25 years or so.

Replace your bulbs with LEDs (or the newer LEPs- light emitting plasma) and save 80% on your electric bills. Everyone with huge lighting needs — from ports, to parking lots  to indoor tennis courts — is adopting these bulbs. Read Wikipedia on LEDs. Also click here and here. Solar installers are now becoming LED and LEP installers. Neat business.

The French Open Tennis continues. Check the Tennis Channel.

Harry Newton who had a nice weekend and extols the benefits of ice packs for crook shoulders.