Blog

New York, again

I’ll be in NY at the end of September.

Update: CoDa Therapeutics

The product has a name: Nexagon

ALL CAPS

Great use of Autotune:

Bill Hicks

Bill Hicks was all attitude and owned the stage everywhere he played.  Listening to him, you’d think this routine was brand new, not recorded 30 years ago.

Mommy, where do supermodels come from?

Southern Brazil, apparently.

Sexsomnia

The new defense for rape.  A brief mention in the NY Times today.

Calling out the imbeciles

Apparently, the Internet now despises Warren Buffett, and for no good reason.

1. On derivatives investing.

Yes, I think you wield lots of power buying derivatives — essentially things that don’t exist.  And yes, Buffett once said they were a bad idea but is now invested in them.  That doesn’t mean he’s contradicted himself, however.  If I say biting your toenails is a bad idea and you go ahead and do it anyway, why can’t I profit from it in some way (if we both agree I’m allowed to)?  Imbeciles of the Internet: derivatives were not Buffett’s idea.  He just saw an angle and profited from it.  THAT’s HIS JOB.

2. On Moody’s.

Charlie Gasparino, speaking on Fox Business, says Buffett owns Moody’s even though he believes the ratings agencies are a sleazy business. “That takes Warren Buffett down three notches in my book,” he adds.

Mssr. Gasparino, are you kidding me?  Value investors invest in companies they believe to be of good value (i.e., cheap).  Moody’s was a very profitable and undervalued company at the time — according to its numbers.  Now there’s a question of fiduciary duty that Buffett has — or anyone in charge of a company has — to make decisions for the benefit of the company and not any one particular individual.  If Buffett did not invest in a company he thought would be highly profitable because “he didn’t like the business,” that would be a breach of fiduciary duty.

Imbeciles of the Internet: running a business is about mathematics, not feelings.  If the numbers work, proceed.  If they do not, do not proceed.  If that system is abused, you put regulations in place.  Business is not charity, it’s commerce.  I might not, for instance, like the idea of using monkeys for research, but that would never preclude me from investing in a biotech start-up that used them in their research, because I am investing in VALUE, not opinions.  Can we invest in what we believe in?  Absolutely… but with our own money, and NOT WITH COMPANY MONEY.

BOND GIRL

Warren Buffett was always more of a myth than anything else.  Before recently at least, he seemed to have a stature that transcended his extraordinary wealth.  He seemed to be the voice of reason in the markets – the person who wanted to make money in the right way.  Somehow in the last month, however, Buffett has gone from being the authority on value to defending some of the most dysfunctional and socially worthless elements of the global financial system.  It’s funny how heroes end up cutting themselves down to size even when no one else can.

Bond Girl, by “value,” we mean market value, not family values.  You’re getting these confused here.  Buffett did not create the markets; he only invests in them, like everyone else.  Once you put your money in something then yes, you must defend it, because you have a duty to your shareholders to defend your decision to invest in said something.  You might not like how things work in the markets, but your personal feelings about the markets should not affect your duty to your shareholders — ever.  Buffett did the right thing at the time in respect to the data available to him.  That’s just good leadership.

Buffett received a lot of press in early May for defending Goldman Sachs at Berkshire Hathaway’s annual meeting, directly after the SEC sued the bank for securities fraud.  I found his enthusiastic and unqualified support for the firm somewhat jarring because I had not met anyone else willing to offer the same.  Most of the people in finance that I know at least lamented the fact that such deals were becoming synonymous with the finance industry as a whole and that they were perceived as guilty by association in the popular consciousness.  Most people seemed to acknowledge that even if Goldman’s behavior was legal, it was not particularly ethical and not the way one would want to run a business.  But there was Buffett, saying that if he has to pick a successor for Blankfein, he’d want Blankfein’s twin brother.

Most people?  Have you ever run a business?  Running a business is about making tough choices.  And sometimes, you get a break, you see an angle.  When you do, you take it.  Now I’m not talking about stealing, but if Zappos, for instance, decided to price all their shoes below wholesale for one day, and you knew about it, you should take advantage of their mistake — THAT’s BUSINESS.  Period.  Not good business, not bad business, but business itself.

And it’s not like Buffett stopped there.  Buffett not only defended Goldman but the Abacus transaction itself, which offered no value in the markets generally and was indistinguishable from gambling.  The WSJ quoted Buffett as saying “it’s a little hard for me to get terribly sympathetic for a bank that made a bad credit deal.”

Exactly.  If a bank, or any business for that matter, makes bad deals, they should not be in business.  It is not for you to pass judgment.

Today, Buffett decided to defend Moody’s Investors Service.  Curiously, Buffett did not make the same argument with respect to Moody’s as he did with the banks – that is, that they should have recognized a bad credit deal when they saw it – because…  Well, I’m not sure…  What function are rating agencies supposed to serve again?

Instead:

“I’m much more inclined to come down hard on CEOs of institutions” that needed to be bailed out by taxpayers, Buffett said today at a hearing of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission in New York.  [Wait, you mean like the ones whose credit derivatives were backstopped by taxpayers at par?  I thought we wanted to hire them or their twin brother.]  Managers at Moody’s “made a mistake that 300 million other Americans made,” he said.

I’m not going to say that ratings analysts represent the sharpest minds in finance, and I’ve said in the past that credit analysis can be very subjective, but the rating agencies’ decision to stamp pretty much anything with an AAA rating was hardly just an intellectual accident and, more importantly, this behavior did not end with the financial crisis.

Buffett makes sense here.  If your business is to gauge creditworthiness, and you fail to do that job well (despite having tools in place to do so), it’s a problem with management and you need to fix that problem (and that DOES NOT always mean you fire the person responsible).  This is a very basic rule of business.  Service at the local diner shitty?  It’s a management problem, not a waitstaff problem or a line cook problem.  This is very clearly the opinion of someone who doesn’t know what it’s like to run a company.

Nevertheless, your logic sounds good to me, Mr. Buffett.  My next-door neighbor’s opinion about the relative creditworthiness of a security is not used as a standard in financial regulations.  Moody’s opinions shouldn’t have that status either.

I agree with you here, Bond Girl.  The problem, however, is that industry standards prevail on Wall Street.  You have a problem with that?  If you do, then it’s regulation you seek, not finger-pointing at people who don’t really deserve it.

FELIX SALMON

Buffett is that rarest of institutional shareholders: someone who actually owns and runs lots of large companies of his own. As such, he can and should act much more like an owner than most shareholders. But he doesn’t, and he has no visible desire to fix the problems at Moody’s or at the ratings agencies more generally. He just says he wishes he’d sold his Moody’s stock earlier, passing on those losses to some other sucker. I don’t think he’s ever going to be able to live this one down.

Mssr. Salmon, do you know what it’s like to own a company?  If you do, you’d also understand the importance of installing a good management team and giving them room to do their thing.  That’s what Buffett does: he lets management manage.  In other words, he does not micromanage, as you are prescribing here.  Or, in other words still, Buffett is not an imbecile.

And why are you such an asshole?  Do you know how many people in the world would’ve liked to have sold their home at the peak of the market, “passing on their losses to some other sucker”?  He got caught in the mess, like so many of us.  Should we all be judged by you?

Internet!  The stupidity must end now.

Rachel Maddow on spilling oil

Clever, clever reporting:

Blue Marble’s myopia

That Blue Marble wants to open an ice cream parlor in Rwanda seems clever, to hippies especially, but anyone who has lived there knows it’s a dumb idea.  That Blue Marble only wants Rwandans to handle the business makes it a tragically dumb idea.

Destined to fail: let’s bet on it.

CoDa Therapeutics

Based on the work of David Becker and Colin Green, CoDa was recommended by the very fantastic Saba as a keen investment.  I’m sold.

Vaughn Ward: wordthief

This is sad — mainly because Ward did not improve upon the delivery.

Separation of Light from Darkness: an anatomical study

Suk and Tamargo, in May 2010’s Neurosurgery, claim to reveal hidden neuroanatomical features in Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel ceiling.

Abstract:

Michelangelo Buonarroti (1475–1564) was a master anatomist as well as an artistic genius. He dissected cadavers numerous times and developed a profound understanding of human anatomy. From 1508 to 1512, Michelangelo painted the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel in Rome. His Sistine Chapel frescoes are considered one of the monumental achievements of Renaissance art. In the winter of 1511, Michelangelo entered the final stages of the Sistine Chapel project and painted 4 frescoes along the longitudinal apex of the vault, which completed a series of 9 central panels depicting scenes from the Book of Genesis. It is reported that Michelangelo concealed an image of the brain in the first of these last 4 panels, namely, the Creation of Adam. Here we present evidence that he concealed another neuronanatomic structure in the final panel of this series, the Separation of Light From Darkness, specifically a ventral view of the brainstem. The Separation of Light From Darkness is an important panel in the Sistine Chapel iconography because it depicts the beginning of Creation and is located directly above the altar. We propose that Michelangelo, a deeply religious man and an accomplished anatomist, intended to enhance the meaning of this iconographically critical panel and possibly document his anatomic accomplishments by concealing this sophisticated neuroanatomic rendering within the image of God.

The figures they present in the paper are compelling.  Indeed, God’s neck does look very much like a brainstem.

Rewriting publishing

New authors are increasingly using internet-based strategies to publish.  The problem, if any, is one of quality.  Sure, readers will filter good from bad, but all writers know that the average reader knows little of good writing.

Gil Boyne 1924 - 2010

Gil Boyne passed away on May 5th, 2010.

Words of advice from Virginia Woolf

Justine Nonon:

She was immensely old.  Little hairs sprouted on her long, bony chin.  She was a hunchback; and walked like a spider, feeling her way with her long dry fingers from one chair to another.

With these words Woolf captured a tiny sliver of her life — something ephemeral and ostensibly disposable — and preserved it for us, in time and type.  And therein lies the wisdom: it’s not so important what you remember about your life, but how you remember it.  More important still?  Who were you during those flashes of life that have so long passed?  A middle-aged woman, battered by time, doesn’t think of anyone being impossibly old anymore — only children do that.