Bull by the Horns

December 11, 2012 at 10:00 am by Dennis Linnell

Sheila Bair’s recent memoir, Bull by the Horns: Fighting to Save Main Street from Wall Street and Wall Street from Itself provides a front row seat, from a senior US government official’s perspective, of the 2008 financial crisis. Whether or not you agree with Ms. Bair’s views, you’ll find her down-home Kansas-style narrative refreshingly frank, animated, and spirited. Her book ranks among the most intellectually stimulating literature on the financial crisis.

The chaotic organization of US financial regulation is in the crosshairs:

[T]he United States has gone too far in creating a plethora of regulators with responsibility for various pieces of the financial system. We do not have an efficient decision-making structure for them to collectively address systemwide problems. Each agency tends to focus on protecting its own turf, instead of stepping back and taking a broad view of regulatory measures that will protect the stability of the system as a whole.” (page 337, emphasis mine)

Anyone who has experienced the dysfunctional inter-agency relationships of the US Treasury, White House, Congress, Federal Reserve, FDIC, OCC, OTS, SEC, CFTC, FSOC, GSEs, PCAOB, FCIC, Basel Committee, G20, GHOS, and a sea of lesser players will instantly recognize the bureaucratic nightmare which the author depicts in breathtaking detail. Having worked on Information Technology projects involving several of these agencies, I can attest that Ms. Bair’s observations offer more than the ring of truth. She writes with passion about how financial wrongdoers failed to take responsibility for actions that worsened the crisis and how government regulators sat idle, choosing not to stop them:

That is why I have written this book. I wanted you to see the crisis through my eyes and experience the obstacles that stood in my way as I tried to push for reform measures that were so obviously needed. (page 356)

If you yearn to see raw uncut footage of financial regulation sausage being made, I highly recommend this book. A few colorful characters add large dollops of pettiness, ego, and incompetence to the mix to spice up the story. You’ll get a clear idea of who Ms. Bair regards as the bad guys (and they’re all male) of Wall Street and Washington. You’ll also read kind words for the good guys and gals. Of those folks in the story I’ve met, I’d say Ms. Bair’s characterizations are fair and balanced.

The fight over Dodd-Frank legislation shows the ugly side of sausage. Ms. Bair tells how she worked with senators and tangled with other regulators to write a liquidation provision that had teeth. Through this, the law would prevent bail outs of failing financial institutions and would force them to be closed with stockholders bearing the losses. But Dodd-Frank turned over the implementation details to the same ‘bad guy’ regulators who abetted the formation of the crisis. Naturally they dragged foot and watered down the law, leaving the government unprepared to deal with future crises. Two years later, Ms. Bair is frustrated Dodd-Frank accomplished nothing:

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act, the landmark law enacted on July 21, 2010, was designed to end the kind of risk taking, greed, and avarice that brought us the financial crisis of 2008. Yet, notwithstanding thousands of pages of proposed and final rules to implement this important law, nothing much seems to have changed … why don’t they just fix this stuff?

Though the final chapters articulate a few laudable policy ideas, Ms. Bair suffers from the same tunnel vision she criticizes above. She views many issues through the lens of compassion for individuals, capital adequacy, and deposit safety. Had she taken “a broad view,” she would have framed the crisis as a classic financial panic consisting of an asset price bubble, inflated by shortsighted policy, easy money, and mass stupidity, resulting in a world wide series of runs on investment banks and commercial banks. And we’re still not out of the woods: sovereign defaults may yet ensue. Such tragedy isn’t unprecedented and a broader look at past crises — not just the Great Depression — would have been beneficial.

Ms. Bair’s policy prescriptions are weak sauce. They treat the crisis symptoms using politically expedient band-aids. The implicit strategy of favoring small institutions over the too-big-to-fail is wrong: it’s government picking winners and losers. This strategy just rearranges the deck chairs on the sinking ship. Ditto for taking small steps to reorganize the persistent morass of overlapping regulatory jurisdiction. Both of these issues call for a forceful drive towards a new architecture for financial regulation.

What’s wrong with favoring small banks over the too-big-to-fail? Ms. Bair argues that implicit government guarantees for too-big-to-fail banks confer advantages over small banks. To compensate, she suggests letting small banks employ higher leverage. But free guarantees for the too-big-to-fail are bad policy for a market economy. And small banks are no more virtuous than big banks. So favoring small banks to counteract bad policy on big banks is an ineffective band-aid. To fix too-big-to-fail, we must eliminate the US taxpayer as the silent partner of big banks. Instead Ms. Bair wants to hand out more government freebies to whoever whines loudest.

Ms. Bair’s band-aids patch up the survivors of the last war when we need to be girding for the next war, which is inevitable and likely to go nuclear.

The book’s closing thoughts evoke profound cognitive dissonance:

It is not hard to fix these problems. We simply lack the political will and fortitude to get the job done. (page 364)

Well, Ms. Bair, I call bull. If these problems are so easy, why didn’t you fix them? Could this “political will and fortitude” thing be harder than it looks? My two cents: the bull that’s the real subject of this book isn’t the famous one that hails from lower Manhattan. The bull we gotta stop is the brown organic stuff that Washington dishes out by the truckload.

Goodbye, Ubuntu

September 25, 2012 at 10:00 am by Dennis Linnell

I’m grateful that Canonical Ltd. sponsored Ubuntu, which I have enjoyed using on my desktop PC and laptops. When I embraced the free operating system seven years ago, I hoped it would grow to meet all my needs. In those days, Ubuntu followed an effective risk-taking strategy, moving “two steps forward and one step backward” in every new version. But Ubuntu’s recent strategy has resulted in two stumbles for every forward step. So it is time for me to say goodbye.

I measured the gap between Ubuntu and my needs by counting the major software packages I deleted while installing each semiannual Ubuntu version. I deleted packages that added annoying bloat (such as unwanted commercial content). When Canonical replaced packages I liked, such as XSane, I deleted the inferior replacements and reinstated the originals. Every year I deleted more and more packages.

With Canonical’s latest step of adding Amazon.com shopping listings to Unity, Ubuntu’s main desktop environment, we arrive at another fork in the road. I have no need to see merchandise when I search the desktop for apps or data. Nondisclosure agreements require that I keep such searches private. Though I could suppress the Amazon listings by typing the awkward “Super+A” on every app search, I’d rather delete the online shopping feature. Goodbye, Amazon.

Speaking of Unity, I’d delete that, too. Introduced in April 2011, Canonical’s Unity user interface still isn’t ready for prime time. It’s a cumbersome replacement for the deprecated GNOME 2 desktop. Instead I’ll install Xfce, which provides all the features I liked in GNOME 2. Goodbye, Unity.

Soon I won’t need to delete anything. I am switching to Debian and installing only the software packages I want. As almost all Ubuntu packages come from Debian, you might say I’m deleting the middleman. Goodbye, deletions.

Thank you, Canonical and the Ubuntu community. You added value to Linux and I learned from your good work. Our paths diverged, so now we part. Goodbye, Ubuntu.

A Bug or a Feature?

June 19, 2012 at 11:16 am by Dennis Linnell

BugYesterday Microsoft announced two Windows tablet computers that “feature significant advances in industrial design and attention to detail.” My crystal ball fogs over when asked whether these computers represent significant advances. Here I focus on “attention to detail.”

The announcement lists this feature:

2×2 MIMO antennae

Insects have antennae, but radios have antennas. (The computer part that handles Wi-Fi is considered a radio.) Ever since the publication of the classic book Antennas in 1950, physicists and engineers have used antennas as the plural form.

I know I’m playing Ask Mister Language Person. Still, had Microsoft been paying attention to detail, this bug would not have slipped through.

A Real Tragedy

June 6, 2012 at 9:28 am by Dennis Linnell

At the D: All Things Digital conference last week, a panel consisting of Walt Mossberg, Salman Khan, and John Hennessy discussed the economics of college-level education. Mr. Mossberg is the well-known Wall Street Journal technology columnist; Mr. Khan is the founder of a non-profit learning enterprise; and Mr. Hennessy is the president of Stanford University. The trio made many points with which I agree, but the train went roaring off the tracks here:

MR. MOSSBERG: The highest rates of tuition increase have been at public institutions. Out-of-state students going to these public universities are paying $25,000 to $30,000 now?

MR. HENNESSY: The biggest tragedy is if you pay that and don’t get your degree…

Wrong. The real tragedy is if you don’t learn anything. Not rare, I’d say.

Fatbox Fail

December 9, 2011 at 11:00 pm by Dennis Linnell

I opened a multi-CD jewel case (colloquially, a fatbox) album of three 25+ year old audio compact discs (CDs) today, preparing for the annual audition of Handel’s holiday masterpiece. A nasty surprise: open-cell polyurethane foam sheets, part of the original fatbox packaging, had spontaneously bonded to the labels of the CDs. Drat.

Peeling the foam off the CD was easy. But the label side was permanently pockmarked beyond repair. The foam had damaged the CD lacquer layer. You might succeed in playing a CD with this kind of damage, but the disc is doomed because the fragile reflective layer that carries the music is no longer protected. My three discs were barely playable.

The fix: Use audio CD rescue software to create new discs. (Data CD rescue software probably won’t work because audio CDs employ a different format.) The free cdrdao package recovered 100% of Handel’s glorious music. I kept the original discs in case of trouble with the copies.

I let my fingers do the walking through the other fatboxes in my collection and guess what? Many, especially those manufactured in the 1980s, contained foam sheets. Not all the foam sheets caused damage, but some of my CDs face reincarnation as coasters.

Have you fingered your fatboxes lately?

Cellphones Don’t Cause Cancer

May 31, 2011 at 10:51 pm by Dennis Linnell

Today’s pronouncement from the World Health Organization (WHO) that cellphone radio frequency (RF) emissions possibly cause cancer, is pusillanimous quackery with no scientific basis.

“The WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified radio frequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans, based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer.”

A study, sponsored by the WHO and published one year ago, showed an elevated, but not statistically significant, rate of glioma among some study participants.

“There were suggestions of an increased risk of glioma at higher exposure levels, but biases and error prevented a causal interpretation.”

Any unbiased investigator applying rigorous scientific method would not have relied on experimental results that failed to pass the customary tests of statistical significance. The IARC admits that “biases and error” tainted the glioma evidence. Instead of responsibly labeling the experiment as inconclusive, the agency recklessly placed cellphone emissions in the same cancer risk category as the banned insecticide DDT. By failing to observe mainstream scientific principles, the IARC most likely will subject cellphone users to unnecessary regulation that will drive up costs and drag down performance.

Scientists, including physicist Bob Park at the University of Maryland, know that ionizing radiation (from X-rays, gamma rays, radioactive isotopes, and the like) damages chromosomes, which can lead to cancer. They also have known for decades that cellphones don’t emit ionizing radiation and cellphone radio frequencies are well below the damage threshold. What’s more, for cancer, frequency is what matters most, and “exposure level” is secondary. Albert Einstein received the Nobel Prize for explaining in the photoelectric effect that energy is proportional to frequency.

No mechanism has been found for radio electromagnetic fields below an 800 terahertz frequency threshold to cause cancer, regardless of exposure level. Cellphones operate at roughly one millionth of the 800 terahertz frequency threshold. So the cellphone-cancer link isn’t based on any mainstream scientific theory.

Even exposure level is low, thanks to government regulations. Though high exposure to radio frequency emissions may contribute to diseases other than cancer, cellphones operate at exposure levels that won’t hurt a fly. Cellphone exposure levels are orders of magnitude below the known threshold for harm.

Evidence of a cellphone-cancer link is exceptionally weak and almost certainly due to chance. I know of only one study with statistically significant findings out of about 20 (see this good survey of the evidence). I won’t bore you with the hideous methodological flaws and conflicts of interest that pervade many cellphone-cancer studies.

So even though cellphone usage is now among the zillion things on the IARC’s cancer risk list, the practical risk is nil. An hour in the sun at the beach or a short airline flight will expose you to more cancer-causing radiation than a lifetime of cellphone usage.

My advice: Don’t chuck your beloved Android phone just yet. Remember the power line scare of 1979? Reason ultimately prevailed, as it will on cellphones. Just don’t hold your breath.

The Lenovo ThinkPad X1: Another Lemon?

April 26, 2011 at 6:57 pm by Dennis Linnell

Lenovo confirmed widespread speculation that its new competitor to the Apple MacBook Air is waiting in the wings. The ultraslim ThinkPad X1 embodies familiar ThinkPad styling and combines the Apple “innovation” of an integrated (not user replaceable) battery with remarkably fast charging. I wish Lenovo well, but if the X1 is as poorly executed as its X300 predecessor, it will be a nightmare.

The X300 debuted in February 2008 around the same time as the first generation MacBook Air. I was so excited about the Lenovo machine that I pre-ordered one as a gift for my daughter. Her X300 was one of the first produced. Alas, it was a lemon. My daughter, who is smarter than I, said “No, thanks, Dad” and returned the machine to me after suffering weeks of trouble with it.

The machine exhibited numerous symptoms. After six round-trips for Lenovo (IBM) service, including three (unnecessary) Windows reloads, one LCD replacement, and two planar/system board replacements, the X300 still crashed daily. Lenovo support personnel repeatedly ignored my assertions that the crashes correlated with wireless usage. After I bought a new Intel 4965AGN wireless board and installed it myself, the daily crashes were history.

The X300 still crashes randomly when I plug in a USB device. This is a known problem I can live with. Problems aside, I really like the machine.

Lessons learned: Unless you are a masochist, avoid buying serial number 00001 of the latest and greatest. And don’t make it a gift to a loved one.

Diagnose a TurboTax Unexpected and Serious Error

January 16, 2011 at 10:24 am by Dennis Linnell

Eager to get going early on my income tax return, I got a surprise shortly after installing TurboTax 2010 software under Windows XP. As TurboTax tried to “get a jump-start” on my 2010 taxes by pulling in last year’s tax return, this annoying box jumped onto the screen.

TurboTax Error Dialog Box

Doesn’t say much, does it? Look up the 11 digit error code, 17257300799, on Google Search and the Turbo Tax support website. Nada. Play around with the program and you’ll trigger other 11 digit error codes such as 17942563671 and 17638845067. Information about similar messages on the TurboTax website goes something like this:

We have seen reports with some TurboTax customers where you attempt to start a new return (or transfer from a 2009 return) and the program shuts down with a serious and unexpected error.

One of the problem reporter error numbers we have seen has been 1991550181, but it could be any 11-digit number. Please be sure you have attempted all troubleshooting steps from our “Other Articles to Try” section on the left side of this page so you can eliminate other system problems first.

Duh. The “Other Articles to Try” section lists the usual suspects (such as antivirus software) that cause things to go wrong when installing software. I laughed when I read that the error code could be any 11-digit number. How in the heck do you troubleshoot a random number? Looking it up doesn’t work.

Want to try your hand at fixing this bad boy? Follow these steps.

1. On the lower left side of the box, click What is sent in the error report?

2. You’ll see a box that starts “The following information is included in the error report.” On the left side, click Error Info underneath About This Report.

3. The next box (see below) will show detailed information about the error. What helped me was the .NET exception message highlighted in gray.

4. Use this information and your bare wits to correct the error. On my machine, restrictive permissions caused the message “Access to the path … is denied.” Fixed in a jiffy with the Windows Explorer security dialog.

TurboTax Error Dialog Box

Best of luck. If worse comes to worse, you can always surf over to the IRS website, download, print, fill out, and mail 2010 Form 4868, “Application for Automatic Extension of Time To File U.S. Individual Income Tax Return.” That will give you a few more months to wrestle with TurboTax.

NVIDIA Chipsets – The Knockout Punch

December 16, 2010 at 8:51 am by Dennis Linnell

One year ago, NVIDIA’s chipset business was on the ropes, courtesy of a lawsuit from Intel and declining AMD processor sales. News last week of Intel burying the hatchet seems good and NVIDIA losing Apple as a chipset customer sounds bad. But the combination is, in effect, the knockout punch, so adios NVIDIA chipsets, as I wrote in October 2009.

NVIDIA’s demise in the chipset game is no big deal, Barron’s magazine opines:

“This is not news,” [Needham & Co. analyst Rajvindra Gill] tells me this afternoon by phone. “The fate of the chipset business has been telegraphed for some time now by management and by the Street.” Chipsets are a business NVIDIA is exiting, so it’s really all about the pace of the run-off of that business.

Chipsets are a commodity with thin margins. Apple is, and always has been, a fickle customer for chip suppliers – just ask Motorola and IBM. So a bloody nose for NVIDIA should hardly have come as a surprise.

NVIDIA’s latest forays, NVIDIA Tegra logothe Tegra processor for mobile computing and Tesla graphics processor module with CUDA supercomputing architecture, look interesting. Investors agree, shooting the company’s stock skyward after a 40% dip last summer. Time will tell how the next round of the graphics fight versus AMD will play out. After losing the last round, NVIDIA’s latest punch lands with zing. My take: I won’t invest, but I still like NVIDIA graphics chips.

Battery Management

March 5, 2010 at 11:57 pm by Dennis Linnell

Battery management is the bane of every portable/mobile electronic device owner’s existence. So it is nice to see Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory solving the problems that prevent lithium-ion batteries from being widely used in electric vehicles. Venkat Srinivasan, one of the scientists working on the project, writes an authoritative blog about the practical considerations of rechargeable batteries. Judging from what I have “learned the hard way” about batteries, Mr. Srinivasan knows his stuff. And he writes well.

His advice on lithium-ion, NiMH, NiCd, and lead-acid batteries is poetry to my ears.