That, according to this handy database, this person would have given the most commencement speeches during this current season of university graduation ceremonies.
Similarly, I would not have guessed the city in the world that is home to the most billionaires.
Yesterday brought the final installment of Kate Kelly’s extraordinary three–part W$J series on the fall of Bear Stearns (Kelly also contributed to today’s story on Bear’s final shareholders meeting). My goodness, was Kelly a fly on the wall over at Bear’s office during all of this? Dear John Thain has an interesting critical analysis of the series here, here and here, while Larry Ribstein and John Carney point out that Kelly apparently fell for what has become known as "the loophole legend" in regard to JP Morgan’s buyout of Bear.
Although all the articles in the series are fun reading, Kelly’s most insightful observation comes from the second installment:
It was the beginning of a frantic 72 hours that would bring the Wall Street firm to its knees and threaten the stability of the global financial system. . . . The brokerage’s sudden fall was a stark reminder of the fragility and ferocity of a financial system built to a remarkable degree on trust. Billions of dollars in securities are traded each day with nothing more than an implicit agreement that trading partners will pay up when asked. When investors became concerned that Bear Stearns wouldn’t be able to settle its trades with clients, that confidence evaporated in a flash. Trading partners, eager to avoid losses, began to disappear almost as quickly. That further fueled rumors of trouble. Some partners, spotting a chance to profit, made bets against Bear Stearns, helping accelerate its demise. . . .
Even after the Bear Stearns lesson, our understanding of the pesky trust-based business model is still not what it should be. Improving the investing public’s understanding of how best to hedge the risk of investing in trust-based businesses is a far more productive response to Bear Stearns-type business failures than this.
I swear, you can’t make this stuff up.
As Larry Ribstein cogently explains, Southwest Airlines has taken advantage of futures markets over the past several years to hedge its fuel costs (previous posts on Southwest’s hedging program are here). That hedging program has been one of the major factors in allowing Southwest to remain one of the only profitable U.S. airlines. Along the same lines, Bloomberg’s Matthew Lynn explains how such markets provide an essential function in re-directing resources in the overall economy.
Meanwhile, Congress is trying to hamstring the very markets (see also here) that provided Southwest and many other businesses with the platform on which they hedged fuel-cost and other business risk. The wealth and lower prices generated from those hedges is not inconsequential.
Finally, the Justice Department continues its advocacy of an effective life sentence for one of the men primarily responsible for developing the robust markets that facilitate Southwest and others’ wealth creation for shareholders and lower costs for customers.
And these folks in Congress and the Justice Department are supposed to be representing our interests?
Following up on this post from awhile back, don’t tell the folks at MIT that the prospects for mankind are gloomy. Check out this MIT News article that resulted from the institute’s news office asking a collection of MIT faculty and researchers for their thoughts on the potentially life-altering technologies that are just around the corner.
Despite what the presidential candidates say, it’s not all that bleak out there, folks!
Randal O’Toole went on a bus tours of different parts of Houston while he was in town for the Preserving the American Dream Conference a couple of weeks ago and he chronicles his impressions with observations here (neighborhoods between downtown and the Galleria area) and here (one of the Houston area’s several master-planned communities, Sienna Plantation). Upon finishing the tour of Sienna, O’Toole commented on the trip back to his downtown hotel:
After finishing up our tour of Sienna, we took the Fort Bend Parkway, one of the region’s many toll roads, back to Houston. This 6.2-mile, four-lane highway required just over a year to build and opened in 2004 at a cost of $60 million. That’s less than $2.5 million per lane mile, including on- and off-ramps, over- and underpasses, and toll facilities. By comparison, $60 million would barely get you one mile of light rail and less than a mile of heavy rail. The toll for the 6.2 miles was $2, even for our full-sized buses.
And compare that to this!
The collateral damage of Roger Clemens’ questionable approach to disputing his use of steroids or other performance-enhancing drugs is already extensive. It now appears that the best player in Stros history may get pulled into the public fray. As this post from a couple of years ago noted, the rumors about Bags and other Stros using PED’s have been around for years.
Regardless of the foregoing, I can sure think of more productive things to do in regard to understanding the perverse Major League Baseball PED culture than dragging decent men such as Jeff Bagwell through the mud.
Earlier this week, the owners of the National Football League elected to opt out of the final two years of the league’s Collective Bargaining Agreement with its Players Association. The Mile High Report and Stacey Brook do good jobs of analyzing the impact of the owners’ election and neither believe that a lockout or strike is likely before a new deal is struck. My sense is that they are probably right, but I did chuckle when I saw this AmLaw Daily blog post on the owners’ decision in regard to hiring counsel for the upcoming labor negotiations:
. . . [The NFL owners] hired L. Robert Batterman of Proskauer Rose. Batterman is well known in labor circles for his National Hockey League work. It was Batterman who presided over the NHL labor negotiations that scuttled the league’s 2004-05 season, making it the first North American pro sports league to lose a full year to labor strife. "Batterman bullied [the union] into submission," says one sports labor lawyer who requested anonymity. "If one accepts the conspiracy theory of collective bargaining, this means the NFL must be looking for trouble," says another. [. . .]
No official negotiations have been held. But the hiring of Batterman sent a clear signal to the union. Gene Upshaw, president of the NFL Players Association, told SportsBusiness Journal in April that his "concerns were heightened" when he heard Batterman had been retained, noting that NHL players crumbled before Batterman’s hard line. The NFLPA’s outside counsel, James Quinn of Weil, Gotshal & Manges, says that the owners "have this bizarre notion that they want to get tough, so they go get Bob Batterman." (Jeffrey Kessler of Dewey & LeBoeuf is also counsel to the NFLPA.)
Doesn’t sound exactly as if the NFL owners are preparing to play nice, now does it? ;^)
The Third Court of Appeals’ decision yesterday ruling that the State of Texas had illegally seized over 450 children from their homes at a polygamist West Texas ranch threw a large monkey wrench into the largest custody case in (at least) recent American history (the court’s decision is here). However, the decision is almost certainly the correct one. As Scott Henson has diligently reported over the past two months, the state’s case for taking such pervasive action was shaky, at best, and has clearly deprived many parents and children of their due process rights.
The appellate court concluded the state had offered no evidence that all of the children were in danger other than an investigator’s vague opinion that the church’s "belief system" encouraged teenage pregnancies. State investigators have identified 20 females at the ranch who had become pregnant before age 18, but most of them are now adults. "Even if one views the FLDS belief system as creating a danger of sexual abuse, there is no evidence that this danger is ‘immediate’ or ‘urgent’ . . . with respect to every child in the community, " the court observed.
As Henson has noted, Texas authorities’ handling of the case has been dubious from the get-go. The state raided the compound last month after a sobbing woman called a family-violence hotline and identified herself as a 16-year-old girl who had been forced into marriage at the compound. Authorities never found the girl and now believe the call may have been a hoax. Then, at a mass custody hearing in mid-April that can only be described as a gross miscarriage of justice, one of the state’s chief witnesses testified that he did not really know whether the young girls and boys removed from the ranch truly had been in danger. Given that context, the appellate court’s decision is not surprising.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is difficult not to feel a profound sense of sadness over the many women and children who are subjected to a stifling existence at the Eldorado compound by a relatively small number of sexual tyrants who hold sway over them. Anthropologist Lionel Tiger addressed the genesis of the cruelty recently in this Wall $treet Journal op-ed:
One of the under-appreciated benefits of living in the Houston metropolitan area is its varied and reasonably priced housing market, which is the subject of this Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas report. The report notes that Houston’s housing market has resisted the boom-and-bust syndrome that has been experienced in many other U.S. housing markets recently:
Given that Houstonians had access to the same new types of mortgages as the rest of the country and that Houston has had greater population growth than other large metros, we might expect price appreciation to be stronger in Houston than elsewhere. However, the opposite has been true.
Houston’s large supply of land means that demand growth primarily results in more construction, not higher prices. Construction levels are limited by the availability of two kinds of developable land: the previously undeveloped, generally found on a metro’s outskirts, and the redeveloping, usually in a city’s interior. In both cases, Houston’s policies are relatively permissive, making the metro friendly toward development.
The most fundamental difference between Houston and other cities lies in how they provide (or in Houston’s case, do not provide) water, sewer and drainage to developments on the urban fringe. In Houston, developers can create a municipal utility district, or MUD, to provide these services on their properties and can finance these with tax-free bonds. Houston requires developers to build MUDs in such a way that they eventually could be connected to the city’s corresponding infrastructure, but they begin as self-sufficient enterprises.
In other cities, developments must be connected to the city’s water and sewer lines, confining new projects to nearby or adjacent land since the cost of building lengthy lines is prohibitive. In metro Houston, by contrast, virtually any large parcel of land can become a new suburb, especially given the metro’s expansive highway system. Experience bears out this conceptual framework, with significant Houston suburbs like Katy and Spring developing and prospering before many closer-in areas.
