The Westchester County government is a layer of government that many argue is excessive. There are few counties that have their own government between state and local. More than one candidate for County President has run on the platform of eliminating County government altogether.
In today's local paper, there was a story that the County government has add a new employee to the payroll. That person's job - look for overspending and waste. Oh the irony!
Monday, December 29, 2008
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Friggin Jets
Can't even count on the Jets NOT to lose. An 11-5 season without Tom Brady at the helm. What can you do? When Brady went down in the first game, I still expected they could win the division. They had a talented D and a well-stocked offense even with a "caretaker" was leading it. It turned out, the "caretaker" was much better than I expected and the D was much worse. I could not have foreseen the Dolphins would also go 11-5 and beat us on tie breakers. Frankly, I can't believe we went 11-5 and didn't even take the wildcard.
When the Jets signed Farve I contended that they were NO better under Favre than they would have been under Pennington (or Clemens). As that turns out, they were worse. Favre has been horrible most of the season, and likely will not return. He, single-handedly, killed the Patriots today. That is the biggest irony.
I feel the same way about the Patriots not being in the playoffs as I did about the Red Sox not beating the Rays in the ALCS. Sure, I would have liked the outcome to be different, but we've had enough success that I can't be bitterly disappointed. I've had bitter disappointment regarding sports teams before, and this isn't that feeling.
When the Jets signed Farve I contended that they were NO better under Favre than they would have been under Pennington (or Clemens). As that turns out, they were worse. Favre has been horrible most of the season, and likely will not return. He, single-handedly, killed the Patriots today. That is the biggest irony.
I feel the same way about the Patriots not being in the playoffs as I did about the Red Sox not beating the Rays in the ALCS. Sure, I would have liked the outcome to be different, but we've had enough success that I can't be bitterly disappointed. I've had bitter disappointment regarding sports teams before, and this isn't that feeling.
Friday, December 26, 2008
Christmas
Christmas was a huge hit this year. Given the circumstances, we opted for less expensive but in greater quantity. In sum, we spent less, but still maximized the joy of Christmas.
Although Christmas is huge for Katie, Emily was super excited for Christmas this year. We tracked Santa on-line, we left food for the reindeer, and she begged to sleep in Katie's room on the floor so she could look out the skylight. In the final week, it was 100% Christmas 100% of the time.
As tradition holds, we read Twas the Night Before Christmas before bedtime...
... and left out cookies and milk. This year, Emily left a note which she had written weeks earlier.
By morning there were lots of presents to open.
Sleeping bags.
Real Mommy baby doll.
Although Christmas is huge for Katie, Emily was super excited for Christmas this year. We tracked Santa on-line, we left food for the reindeer, and she begged to sleep in Katie's room on the floor so she could look out the skylight. In the final week, it was 100% Christmas 100% of the time.
As tradition holds, we read Twas the Night Before Christmas before bedtime...
... and left out cookies and milk. This year, Emily left a note which she had written weeks earlier.
By morning there were lots of presents to open.
Sleeping bags.
Softball glove.
New jeans.
Real Mommy baby doll.
Santa even brought drums. I had told Katie I never thought Santa would bring a kid drums. Looks like he made a good compromise.
It was a musical Christmas as they each got a guitar - seen here being backed up by their oversized Kooky Pens.
They both utilized the digital camera given to them by Gramma and Poppy. If you look closely, you can see that Emily created her own design on it.
Later in the day, word must have spread among the reindeer community that we fed Santa's hoofers. A couple showed up looking for their own treats. If you zoom in, you can see that one of them even has antlers. We don't see many with antlers around here - so he MUST be from the North Pole.
Finally, we dodged a bit of a holiday bullet. On this morning (Dec 26), Emily awoke and tossed her not-so-proverbial cookies. Better today than yesterday.
Merry Christmas.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Very Creative!
Bloomberg News reports that Credit Suisse is going to pay its Managing Directors in illiquid assets currently held on CS' books. This is a very creative idea, and in the end could work out well for everyone.
Credit Suisse has been one of the best managed financial organizations throughout this crisis (and by definition through the last few years). They aren't completely blameless (else they wouldn't have the illiquid assets in the first place), but they haven't let it sink the firm.
The partners will receive interest in a pool of assets that will remain on CS' books. It will help retention (not that anyone is going anywhere these days), and potentially be a winfall. It could also be worth little, but in that case, CS has paid it out instead of cash.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=abJOQQI18SAE&refer=home
Credit Suisse has been one of the best managed financial organizations throughout this crisis (and by definition through the last few years). They aren't completely blameless (else they wouldn't have the illiquid assets in the first place), but they haven't let it sink the firm.
The partners will receive interest in a pool of assets that will remain on CS' books. It will help retention (not that anyone is going anywhere these days), and potentially be a winfall. It could also be worth little, but in that case, CS has paid it out instead of cash.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=abJOQQI18SAE&refer=home
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Tex are Can ah
It sounds like the Red Sox are closing in on First Basemen Mark Texiera. The Sox brass has flown to Texas to potentially ink a deal. I hope we get this guy as much as anyone. We need a strong, reliable bat in the lineup, and no one scared me more on the Angels at the end of last year than facing him.
The guy can hit and play the field. Here's his stat line on his 54 games with the Angels:
Average: .358
On-Base: .449
Slugging: .632
HR: 13
Although those are the best numbers of his entire career, his other seasons aren't too shabby.
But here's a couple things that scare me a little, and would give me cold feet in signing him to a 8-year $184 million contract.
1. He's only made the All-Star team once, and it was back in 2005.
2. Baseball Reference.com (good stat site: www.baseball-reference.com) measures something called similarity scores. It allows you to compare players from different eras. Here are Texiera's comps:
Miguel Cabrera (2003-2008), Glenn Davis (1984-1993), Zeke Bonura (1934-1940), Bob Horner (1977-1988), Ripper Collins (1931-1941), Don Hurst (1928-1934), Kevin Mitchell (1983-1988), Aubrey Huff (2000-2008).
Dropping off names I clearly wouldn't know, lets stick with Cabrera, Mitchell, and Huff
Not exactly a murders' row even though Cabrera's a pretty solid player, and can play multiple positions. Huff just signed a FA deal last Winter for $8 million. Far from $23 million. Texiera is better than Huff, but is he $15 million better?
Baseball Reference also does similarity scores based on age. Here are Texiera's comps for players through 28 years old:
Carlos Delgado, Kent Hrbeck, Fred McGriff, Jim Thome, Will Clark, Jeff Bagwell, Willie McCovey Richie Sexton, Shawn Green, Paul Konerko
Ok. This list is better - but who's kidding who. I was hoping it would say Babe Ruth. We'll be saddled with this guy for a long time. I just hope he's worth it. I know its blasphamy around Boston, but I would have rather spent $27 million per year on A-rod last year. Think about it. I said it at the time, but in retrospect it looks even better. Last offseason, sign A-rod after his opt-out, move him back to short, trade Manny, keep CoCo and Ellsbury, develop Lowry as your future 3B. In that scenario, you'd have had kept the same power in your lineup and improved your defense. Manny would have been gone earlier, and we would have picked up something in his trade. Maybe you still got Bay, and CoCo remained the fourth outfielder.
The guy can hit and play the field. Here's his stat line on his 54 games with the Angels:
Average: .358
On-Base: .449
Slugging: .632
HR: 13
Although those are the best numbers of his entire career, his other seasons aren't too shabby.
But here's a couple things that scare me a little, and would give me cold feet in signing him to a 8-year $184 million contract.
1. He's only made the All-Star team once, and it was back in 2005.
2. Baseball Reference.com (good stat site: www.baseball-reference.com) measures something called similarity scores. It allows you to compare players from different eras. Here are Texiera's comps:
Miguel Cabrera (2003-2008), Glenn Davis (1984-1993), Zeke Bonura (1934-1940), Bob Horner (1977-1988), Ripper Collins (1931-1941), Don Hurst (1928-1934), Kevin Mitchell (1983-1988), Aubrey Huff (2000-2008).
Dropping off names I clearly wouldn't know, lets stick with Cabrera, Mitchell, and Huff
Not exactly a murders' row even though Cabrera's a pretty solid player, and can play multiple positions. Huff just signed a FA deal last Winter for $8 million. Far from $23 million. Texiera is better than Huff, but is he $15 million better?
Baseball Reference also does similarity scores based on age. Here are Texiera's comps for players through 28 years old:
Carlos Delgado, Kent Hrbeck, Fred McGriff, Jim Thome, Will Clark, Jeff Bagwell, Willie McCovey Richie Sexton, Shawn Green, Paul Konerko
Ok. This list is better - but who's kidding who. I was hoping it would say Babe Ruth. We'll be saddled with this guy for a long time. I just hope he's worth it. I know its blasphamy around Boston, but I would have rather spent $27 million per year on A-rod last year. Think about it. I said it at the time, but in retrospect it looks even better. Last offseason, sign A-rod after his opt-out, move him back to short, trade Manny, keep CoCo and Ellsbury, develop Lowry as your future 3B. In that scenario, you'd have had kept the same power in your lineup and improved your defense. Manny would have been gone earlier, and we would have picked up something in his trade. Maybe you still got Bay, and CoCo remained the fourth outfielder.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Thanks-mas
We had a really nice weekend. Saturday was Moore Day, as dubbed by the kids. My parents, sister and her husband, and one of my brothers and his family came and spent the day at our house. It was a sort of Thanks-mas, an equal point between Thanksgiving and Christmas. Saturday afternoon was loaded with Rock Band and Guitar Hero concerts on the XBox. Alison prepared a great meal, and the day was enjoyed by all.
We exchanged Christmas presents. A little bird helped my parents get the kids Disney's Sing It, for the XBox, and quickly, Sunday morning turned from Classic Rock air guitars to Hannah Montana Karaoke. By later that morning, everyone had hit the road, which was good, because we had our golf club's Christmas party.
As I watched the Bills fumble away their win against the Jets, the Kids saw a puppet show followe by a magic show. Eventually we got to see Santa. I must say, fortunately for us, Santa looked a little better than the time I saw him at Walmart last week.
We had a little issue last year, where some faulty glue convinced the girls that the club's Santa was only a stand-in, and in fact he was being played by "Magic Dave." I assured them, it was NOT Magic Dave, but I could have talked til I was blue in the face. This year, Katie thought the beard was a hoax, but Emily was certain it had been real. It doesn't really matter, I guess, since neither told him what they wished for.
Emily has crafted Santa a note for which she plans to leave for him on Christmas Eve. I'll share it with you now as is:
"Dear, Santa
did you relly give presints when you
wher a teen ager? how did the
rainder fly?
Love, Emily"
Hopefully he'll answer...
We exchanged Christmas presents. A little bird helped my parents get the kids Disney's Sing It, for the XBox, and quickly, Sunday morning turned from Classic Rock air guitars to Hannah Montana Karaoke. By later that morning, everyone had hit the road, which was good, because we had our golf club's Christmas party.
As I watched the Bills fumble away their win against the Jets, the Kids saw a puppet show followe by a magic show. Eventually we got to see Santa. I must say, fortunately for us, Santa looked a little better than the time I saw him at Walmart last week.We had a little issue last year, where some faulty glue convinced the girls that the club's Santa was only a stand-in, and in fact he was being played by "Magic Dave." I assured them, it was NOT Magic Dave, but I could have talked til I was blue in the face. This year, Katie thought the beard was a hoax, but Emily was certain it had been real. It doesn't really matter, I guess, since neither told him what they wished for.
Emily has crafted Santa a note for which she plans to leave for him on Christmas Eve. I'll share it with you now as is:
"Dear, Santa
did you relly give presints when you
wher a teen ager? how did the
rainder fly?
Love, Emily"
Hopefully he'll answer...
Thursday, December 4, 2008
"For myself, I would be happy to see conservatism exit from the political scene--provided it takes liberalism with it. I would like to see us enter a post-ideological era in which policies are based on pragmatic considerations rather than on conformity to a set of preconceptions rooted in a rapidly vanishing past. " - Richard Posner (Judge, United States Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Senior Lecturer, University of Chicago Law School, Economist)
http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/
Agreed.
http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/
Agreed.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Macy's Parade
Thanks to good weather, we took on the crowd to watch the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade with my college friend Peter and his daughter. None of us had seen it live before. Leaving the house at about 7am got us to the West side of Central Park West by 8am. Not anywhere near the time to be curbside for the 9am parade start. Rather, we were roughly 15 people deep into the crowd.
We stood on 70th Street next to some police sawhorse barriers. When the parade began, the girls took turns standing on the sawhorse (three girls and two spots). I spent a large part of the remaining time with one of them on my shoulders. Yes, they are sore.
We saw all the balloons, most of the floats and only a few of the people on the street. We saw Miley Cyrus, Nickelodeon's Miranda Cosgrove and Santa Claus in person. We missed seeing David Archuletta, and the girls were disappointed - me, not so much. I have a friend on 70th St., so we were able to duck the outgoing crowds for about a half an hour. By the time we emerged, the street was basically empty, the subways was mild, and Metro North was empty. Worked well. This three minute video is a good summary of it.
We stood on 70th Street next to some police sawhorse barriers. When the parade began, the girls took turns standing on the sawhorse (three girls and two spots). I spent a large part of the remaining time with one of them on my shoulders. Yes, they are sore.
We saw all the balloons, most of the floats and only a few of the people on the street. We saw Miley Cyrus, Nickelodeon's Miranda Cosgrove and Santa Claus in person. We missed seeing David Archuletta, and the girls were disappointed - me, not so much. I have a friend on 70th St., so we were able to duck the outgoing crowds for about a half an hour. By the time we emerged, the street was basically empty, the subways was mild, and Metro North was empty. Worked well. This three minute video is a good summary of it.
Lots of fun were had by all. Happy Thanksgiving!
Monday, November 24, 2008
Citi Card Update
After speaking to a customer service rep on Thursday who acknowledged that my credit limit downgrade was ridiculous, she put me in for credit "reinstatement." I haven't spoken with anyone from there today, but noticed on their website that my credit limit was increased. It's not back to normal, but is 20% of my original amount rather than a ludicrous 5%. I'll probably still switch banks, but at least the rush to replace the card isn't as great.
Maybe the reprive was related to their $306 billion Treasury bailout funds received over the weekend, or maybe they just realized they were being STUPID.
Maybe the reprive was related to their $306 billion Treasury bailout funds received over the weekend, or maybe they just realized they were being STUPID.
Cassel's time
Matt Cassel is developing for sure. In the first half of the season, he seemingly only had the ability to make one read. If that option was covered he was doomed. The next option often resulted in stepping up into the on-coming rush. I was highly critical of him both privately and on Football Outsiders.
However, his improving pocket pressence and new-found mobility have allowed him to make multiple reads. Note the change in sacks. In his first 5 full games, he was sacked 23 times. In the latest 5 games, 9 sacks. The offensive line has not materially changed over that time period. During those same sets of games, he rushed for 46 yards (with 29 coming against Denver), versus 140 yards. The additional time he's given himself behind the line of scrimmage has led to a more wide open game plan, and a ability to throw the ball downfield. Was anyone else surprised how often the Patriots came out in empty-backfield formations yesterday?
He has now thrown for 400+ yards in two games in a row. Considering Brady didn't do that even with last year's absurd numbers is impressive. However, before we get too crazy, Miami and New York have very mediocre pass defenses. According to our Football Outsiders rankings, incoming Pittsburgh has the third best pass defense in the league (as well as the second best run defense). I'll be there to watch it in person.
However, his improving pocket pressence and new-found mobility have allowed him to make multiple reads. Note the change in sacks. In his first 5 full games, he was sacked 23 times. In the latest 5 games, 9 sacks. The offensive line has not materially changed over that time period. During those same sets of games, he rushed for 46 yards (with 29 coming against Denver), versus 140 yards. The additional time he's given himself behind the line of scrimmage has led to a more wide open game plan, and a ability to throw the ball downfield. Was anyone else surprised how often the Patriots came out in empty-backfield formations yesterday?
He has now thrown for 400+ yards in two games in a row. Considering Brady didn't do that even with last year's absurd numbers is impressive. However, before we get too crazy, Miami and New York have very mediocre pass defenses. According to our Football Outsiders rankings, incoming Pittsburgh has the third best pass defense in the league (as well as the second best run defense). I'll be there to watch it in person.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Newspaper Star
Although I can't seem to find the associated article online (I haven't even seen it in print myself), Katie made the front page of the local, local, local newspaper.
She, and many from her Girl Scout troop, made cards and other items for local area veterans for delivery on Veterans Day.
She, and many from her Girl Scout troop, made cards and other items for local area veterans for delivery on Veterans Day.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Credit Crunch Hits Home, again - Absurdly
This is ridiculous. I have been a Citibank Credit Card customer for 11 years. I run all my bills through it, and it's the only card we really use. It was quite convenient. All of our regular bills get automatically paid with the card, we pick up airline miles, and have one central source of record keeping. I pay the balance in full at the end of every month, and don't carry a balance.
A couple of years ago, they wanted to save money and switch to all electronic communications, and even offered an incentive to do so. About a year ago, they moved customer service overseas to save more money. Earlier this year, I started having problems with their electronic communication. They are supposed to send me an e-mail stating, you card is due in 5 days (or something like that), and I stopped getting those e-mails. So, in a bunch of months this summer, the account went between 2 and 10 days overdue - but awlays paid in full. I'd call and complain that e-mail never went out, and I'd get some incompetent person who couldn't help. Meanwhile, Citi is racking up fees on me. Finally, I get sick of it, and put the card on Auto-Pay in ealy August.
In October, I get an e-mail that my account if over 30 days past due. How can that be?
I call and speak to more incompetent customer service reps, and finally they conclude that it doesn't look like Auto-Pay withdrew the funds for September. Oops. Sorry. So over the phone, at Mr. Stellar Customer Service Rep's advice, I pay the whole balance - September and part of October. Frankly, I don't want to be charged finance charges on the October balance. He says he'll fix it and call back in a couple of days to make sure no fees were attached. Crisis averted ... or so I thought.
When I get my October Statement, I find that I was debited TWICE - once on the phone and once on Auto-Pay. I now had a multi-thousand dollar CREDIT! And that it turns out isn't the worst of it.
Today, I get an e-mail that I am within $5000 of my credit limit. How can THAT be? I have a credit balance on the account, and I've never been ANYWHERE near my account limit, EVER.
I call again [surprsingly, I get an American agent] who transfers me to the accounts department. "Oh, you didn't get the letter?" Ummm, No.
Apparently, since my account had an over 30 days due, it got flagged. Since there were also a couple of delinquencies over the Summer, combined with an over 30 day delinquency, my credit limit was reduced to less than 5% of the original amount.
I can get it reversed, but it can't be done without six months "clean" record. No appeals process, no notification. Nothing. Nice job Citi, way to manage your "risks."
A couple of years ago, they wanted to save money and switch to all electronic communications, and even offered an incentive to do so. About a year ago, they moved customer service overseas to save more money. Earlier this year, I started having problems with their electronic communication. They are supposed to send me an e-mail stating, you card is due in 5 days (or something like that), and I stopped getting those e-mails. So, in a bunch of months this summer, the account went between 2 and 10 days overdue - but awlays paid in full. I'd call and complain that e-mail never went out, and I'd get some incompetent person who couldn't help. Meanwhile, Citi is racking up fees on me. Finally, I get sick of it, and put the card on Auto-Pay in ealy August.
In October, I get an e-mail that my account if over 30 days past due. How can that be?
I call and speak to more incompetent customer service reps, and finally they conclude that it doesn't look like Auto-Pay withdrew the funds for September. Oops. Sorry. So over the phone, at Mr. Stellar Customer Service Rep's advice, I pay the whole balance - September and part of October. Frankly, I don't want to be charged finance charges on the October balance. He says he'll fix it and call back in a couple of days to make sure no fees were attached. Crisis averted ... or so I thought.
When I get my October Statement, I find that I was debited TWICE - once on the phone and once on Auto-Pay. I now had a multi-thousand dollar CREDIT! And that it turns out isn't the worst of it.
Today, I get an e-mail that I am within $5000 of my credit limit. How can THAT be? I have a credit balance on the account, and I've never been ANYWHERE near my account limit, EVER.
I call again [surprsingly, I get an American agent] who transfers me to the accounts department. "Oh, you didn't get the letter?" Ummm, No.
Apparently, since my account had an over 30 days due, it got flagged. Since there were also a couple of delinquencies over the Summer, combined with an over 30 day delinquency, my credit limit was reduced to less than 5% of the original amount.
I can get it reversed, but it can't be done without six months "clean" record. No appeals process, no notification. Nothing. Nice job Citi, way to manage your "risks."
Monday, November 17, 2008
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Concise and Clear from a Source You Wouldn't Expect
We attended a birthday dinner for my brother-in-law, Chris, last night. The conversation turned to politics and economics. Near the end, my mother-in-law, posed an interesting question to me and similarly-minded Chris. "What is important to you [politically and economically] for the future - looking out ten years?" We each spoke shortly about our ideal government priorities and policies.
Coincidentally, the Wall Street Journal ran an op-ed piece this morning called, "The Path to Prosperity." I began reading it, and thought that it was extremely well written. It was a clear and concise summary of an idealogy for proper government policies to promote the positive aspects of capitalism and thus overall prosperity. I like the editors of the WSJ, but hadn't noticed who had written the piece. I scanned down the page to see how much more the article had to go, and noticed it was not written by one of the editors, but rather was an editorial submission. I was shocked to see who had submitted it - George W. Bush. The article is an excerted speech that he gave to an audience in Manhatten on Thursday. If it was delivered with anywhere near the eloquance with which it was written, it should rank among the best speeches on capitalism and free trade ever given by a US President. I wasn't there, but I unfortunately doubt it was. Too bad.
Here is a link:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122670648178429695.html#printMode
Coincidentally, the Wall Street Journal ran an op-ed piece this morning called, "The Path to Prosperity." I began reading it, and thought that it was extremely well written. It was a clear and concise summary of an idealogy for proper government policies to promote the positive aspects of capitalism and thus overall prosperity. I like the editors of the WSJ, but hadn't noticed who had written the piece. I scanned down the page to see how much more the article had to go, and noticed it was not written by one of the editors, but rather was an editorial submission. I was shocked to see who had submitted it - George W. Bush. The article is an excerted speech that he gave to an audience in Manhatten on Thursday. If it was delivered with anywhere near the eloquance with which it was written, it should rank among the best speeches on capitalism and free trade ever given by a US President. I wasn't there, but I unfortunately doubt it was. Too bad.
Here is a link:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122670648178429695.html#printMode
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Matching Set
Monday, November 10, 2008
Katie's Soccer
Katie's 3rd/4th grade soccer came to a close this past week. Her team didn't fare to well. I think they ended the season 1-5-1, or something like that. At this age, the game can turn on the talent of one player. Twice, she played against a team that had one girl who was a good six inches taller than every other girl on the field.
That girl (pictured furthest on left), who started the first half on defense, scored two goals in the second half, and Katie's team was eliminated from the postseason tournament 2-0. Although there were some talented girls on Katie's team, there were none that could sway a game.
Katie started the season timid, and with little understanding of the game beyond traditional kids' version of "magnet ball." However, by the end of the season she had a good grasp of the responsibilities of each position, and had honed her skills. Although the coaches played her at defense in the last two games, I think she best served the team at mid. Unlike many on the team, she had the will and the stamina to run both ends of the field, and was best utilized when playing on the offensive side of the ball.
Although she scored no goals during the season, she came close in the second to last regular season game. Collecting a pass just outside of the goalie box, she unloaded a good kick to the left of the goalie. Now in this case, the goalie happened to be one of her good friends, Elizabeth - a solidly athletic girl. Elizabeth reached back to her left, and grabbed the ball before it could cross the goal line. Katie who has always valued friendship over competition, caught Elizabeth's eye, and gave her a "thumbs up."
Monday, November 3, 2008
R U Kidding?
This guy gets a job, and I can't?!?
Oct. 31 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Reserve Bank of New York hired Michael Alix, the former chief risk officer of Bear Stearns Cos., into a group that supervises banks to maintain their safety. Alix was chief risk officer of Bear Stearns from 2006 until 2008, when the bank was forced to sell itself to JPMorgan Chase to avoid bankruptcy. He was global head of credit risk management from 1996 to 2006 and worked previously at Merrill Lynch & Co. Alix will be a senior adviser to William Rutledge, executive vice president of the bank supervision group, according to a statement on the New York Fed's Web site. Staff in the group``assess the safety and soundness of domestic banking institutions,'' according to the Web site.
Oct. 31 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Reserve Bank of New York hired Michael Alix, the former chief risk officer of Bear Stearns Cos., into a group that supervises banks to maintain their safety. Alix was chief risk officer of Bear Stearns from 2006 until 2008, when the bank was forced to sell itself to JPMorgan Chase to avoid bankruptcy. He was global head of credit risk management from 1996 to 2006 and worked previously at Merrill Lynch & Co. Alix will be a senior adviser to William Rutledge, executive vice president of the bank supervision group, according to a statement on the New York Fed's Web site. Staff in the group``assess the safety and soundness of domestic banking institutions,'' according to the Web site.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Barack Wrote a Letter . . .
From the Wall Street Journal:
Barack Wrote a Letter . . .
The Born supremacy, and other meltdown myths.
At the October 7 Presidential debate, John McCain said that Barack Obama had encouraged Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make risky loans, and that Mr. Obama was the second largest recipient of campaign cash from the government mortgage giants.
Mr. Obama replied that he "never promoted Fannie Mae" and that "two years ago I said that we've got a subprime lending crisis that has to be dealt with." And that's not all. "I wrote to Secretary Paulson, I wrote to Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke, and told them this is something we have to deal with, and nobody did anything about it," said the Illinois Senator.
There's more. Mr. Obama's March 2007 letter included a stirring call to "assess options" and boldly suggested that the two men "facilitate a serious conversation" about housing. He was even brave enough to suggest that "the relevant private sector entities and regulators" might be able to provide "targeted responses." Then in paragraph four, the Harvard-trained lawyer dropped his bombshell: a suggestion that various interest groups get together to "consider" best practices in mortgage lending.
Some may find it hard to believe that Mr. Obama had nothing to show for this herculean effort to shake up Washington. They may be shocked as well that such passionate language didn't move the Fed and Treasury to action. For our part, we note that nowhere in his letter did Mr. Obama suggest that the government should stop subsidizing loans to people who can't repay them.
This is the latest fad among Beltway liberals who spent years encouraging noneconomic mortgage loans. They now proudly announce that at critical moments they issued a press release, or wrote someone, suggesting that somebody do something. Since soured mortgage loans are a root cause of this panic, and since Democrats did so much to encourage mortgage lending, the most politically useful of these archived warnings are the ones blaming something other than housing.
For example, recent media reports have lauded the prescience of Edward Markey, the Massachusetts Democrat who has long called for increased regulation of financial derivatives. Not that this says much about derivatives. Mr. Markey has also called for increased regulation of the Internet, cable TV, telephones, prescription drugs, nuclear plants, natural gas facilities, oil drilling, air cargo containers, chlorine, carbon dioxide, accounting, advertising and amusement parks, among other things.
But derivatives are the irresistible story now, because they offer the opportunity to shift the blame from bad housing policy, and they suggest that a lack of financial regulation was the problem. While lauding Mr. Markey, the media also cast Brooksley Born, Bill Clinton's Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, as the ultimate heroine in this drama. Like Horatio at the bridge, she tried to regulate the derivatives market over the objections of such dummies as Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, SEC chief Arthur Levitt, and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan.
The left's hope is that derivatives are so poorly understood that people can be convinced that turmoil in the market for credit default swaps -- an effect of soured mortgage loans -- is actually a cause of this crisis. Credit default swaps (CDS) are insurance policies against companies or investment vehicles going bankrupt and being unable to pay their creditors. This insurance is cheap when things are going well, and very expensive when investors expect the relevant entities to fail. Turns out that the markets for CDS and other derivatives not tied to the housing crisis are functioning normally.
Meanwhile, in an amazing coincidence, it is the failure -- or the expected failure -- of entities with heavy exposure to toxic mortgages that is putting extreme financial strain on those who sold insurance. But the problem can't possibly be the toxic mortgages encouraged by Washington, according to the politicians. It must be the system of insuring against the collapse of those who bought the mortgages.
Did many sellers of credit default swaps make horrendous judgments in assessing the likelihood of defaults? Yes, and they were encouraged to make these poor judgments by government-approved credit-rating agencies stamping approval on mortgage-backed securities. If an investment or commercial bank was holding assets branded rock-solid by government's anointed judges of creditworthiness, who wouldn't feel comfortable insuring against their failure?
Much of the subprime disaster could have been avoided if only the credit raters had never agreed to slap the AAA tag on collateralized debt obligations (CDOs). Almost no one understood these instruments, which contained portions from other pools of mortgage-backed securities, but with even less transparency. Most investors around the world had never heard of a CDO before the housing boom. But they knew what AAA meant. They had been told for years by the government's chosen credit raters that this label meant sound, conservative investing. Highly unlikely to default.
If Barack Obama wants to write any more letters, he should urge his colleagues in Washington to focus on the causes of this crisis, not the effects. Unlike Senators, Presidents are expected to solve problems, not merely write about them.
Barack Wrote a Letter . . .
The Born supremacy, and other meltdown myths.
At the October 7 Presidential debate, John McCain said that Barack Obama had encouraged Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make risky loans, and that Mr. Obama was the second largest recipient of campaign cash from the government mortgage giants.
Mr. Obama replied that he "never promoted Fannie Mae" and that "two years ago I said that we've got a subprime lending crisis that has to be dealt with." And that's not all. "I wrote to Secretary Paulson, I wrote to Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke, and told them this is something we have to deal with, and nobody did anything about it," said the Illinois Senator.
There's more. Mr. Obama's March 2007 letter included a stirring call to "assess options" and boldly suggested that the two men "facilitate a serious conversation" about housing. He was even brave enough to suggest that "the relevant private sector entities and regulators" might be able to provide "targeted responses." Then in paragraph four, the Harvard-trained lawyer dropped his bombshell: a suggestion that various interest groups get together to "consider" best practices in mortgage lending.
Some may find it hard to believe that Mr. Obama had nothing to show for this herculean effort to shake up Washington. They may be shocked as well that such passionate language didn't move the Fed and Treasury to action. For our part, we note that nowhere in his letter did Mr. Obama suggest that the government should stop subsidizing loans to people who can't repay them.
This is the latest fad among Beltway liberals who spent years encouraging noneconomic mortgage loans. They now proudly announce that at critical moments they issued a press release, or wrote someone, suggesting that somebody do something. Since soured mortgage loans are a root cause of this panic, and since Democrats did so much to encourage mortgage lending, the most politically useful of these archived warnings are the ones blaming something other than housing.
For example, recent media reports have lauded the prescience of Edward Markey, the Massachusetts Democrat who has long called for increased regulation of financial derivatives. Not that this says much about derivatives. Mr. Markey has also called for increased regulation of the Internet, cable TV, telephones, prescription drugs, nuclear plants, natural gas facilities, oil drilling, air cargo containers, chlorine, carbon dioxide, accounting, advertising and amusement parks, among other things.
But derivatives are the irresistible story now, because they offer the opportunity to shift the blame from bad housing policy, and they suggest that a lack of financial regulation was the problem. While lauding Mr. Markey, the media also cast Brooksley Born, Bill Clinton's Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, as the ultimate heroine in this drama. Like Horatio at the bridge, she tried to regulate the derivatives market over the objections of such dummies as Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, SEC chief Arthur Levitt, and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan.
The left's hope is that derivatives are so poorly understood that people can be convinced that turmoil in the market for credit default swaps -- an effect of soured mortgage loans -- is actually a cause of this crisis. Credit default swaps (CDS) are insurance policies against companies or investment vehicles going bankrupt and being unable to pay their creditors. This insurance is cheap when things are going well, and very expensive when investors expect the relevant entities to fail. Turns out that the markets for CDS and other derivatives not tied to the housing crisis are functioning normally.
Meanwhile, in an amazing coincidence, it is the failure -- or the expected failure -- of entities with heavy exposure to toxic mortgages that is putting extreme financial strain on those who sold insurance. But the problem can't possibly be the toxic mortgages encouraged by Washington, according to the politicians. It must be the system of insuring against the collapse of those who bought the mortgages.
Did many sellers of credit default swaps make horrendous judgments in assessing the likelihood of defaults? Yes, and they were encouraged to make these poor judgments by government-approved credit-rating agencies stamping approval on mortgage-backed securities. If an investment or commercial bank was holding assets branded rock-solid by government's anointed judges of creditworthiness, who wouldn't feel comfortable insuring against their failure?
Much of the subprime disaster could have been avoided if only the credit raters had never agreed to slap the AAA tag on collateralized debt obligations (CDOs). Almost no one understood these instruments, which contained portions from other pools of mortgage-backed securities, but with even less transparency. Most investors around the world had never heard of a CDO before the housing boom. But they knew what AAA meant. They had been told for years by the government's chosen credit raters that this label meant sound, conservative investing. Highly unlikely to default.
If Barack Obama wants to write any more letters, he should urge his colleagues in Washington to focus on the causes of this crisis, not the effects. Unlike Senators, Presidents are expected to solve problems, not merely write about them.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
The Blame Game
In Barack Obama's closing statement in Wednesday night's debate, he made a reference that is typical among historical revisionist politicians. It's political pandering. It drives me crazy, and is just plain wrong.
"Washington's unwillingness to tackle the tough problems for decades, has left us in the worst economic crisis since the great depression."
He's completely right, but for the complete opposite reason than his meaning. The implication made by a Democrat Presidential candidate is that the problems of today's financial markets exist because of "failed" policies of the Republican White House. It's crap, and it only panders to the lowest common denominator that is American politics. It's the concept that, "If I say it, it must be true." Obama's not the only politican seeking to lay blame. It's human nature to seek blame, but in a election period, everyone looks to blame someone but themselves, or their associates. However, here are the facts:
The financial problems have many of its roots in the pre- and post-dot com bubble burst. The inflated (and somewhat fictional) economy that was the late 1990s, had already begun to raise real estate prices. Feeling newly flush with money, average American began bidding up real estate. The term "McMansion" came on the scene as the neuvo riche tore down old homes and built monstrosities in their place.
When the technology stocks came crashing in, the average person who had been burned investing in hyped stock valuations, re-evaluated how he or she looked at investing and assets in general. Ownership of companies full of "air" was out-of-favor, and hard and tangible assets became important. I heard my mother-in-law say numerous times the mantra, "real estate is the best investment." Home ownership after the dot com crash became even more important.
In wake of the post 9/11 economic recession, the Federal Reserve kept interest rates extremely low which continued to fuel the public's eagerness to own hard assets. Monetary policy encouraged banks to lend. Mortgage rates were already low, and the public pounced on the opportunity to buy houses. Standard supply and demand in action drove housing prices up even further.
As the economy bouced back from the 9/11 lows and began to surge post the Bush tax cuts, the Federal Reserve sought to reign in economic growth. Without getting too much into monetary policy and the Federal Reserve: their actions were effective on the short end of the interest curve, but not the long end. Developing nations were booming, and investing in U.S. Treasury Securities. Long-term rates were remaining stubbornly low, and Fed Chief, Alan Greenspan, referred to it as a "conunderum." Mortgage rates are based off long-term rates, not short-term ones. Consequently, the Fed, which hoped to pop the housing bubble, was ineffective.
Low interest rates and easily available, cheap corporate credit were allowing companies (even ones with shaky balance sheets) to refinance and borrow at low rates. Stock valuations were high, and returns on bonds were quite low. On top of that, low volatility in the market reduced risk premiums on traditionally risky investments. Basically, proper returns on investments were becoming harder and harder to come by. Traditional institutional investors (pension funds, mutual funds, endowments, banks and hedge funds) sought new ways to improve their returns. It can be accomplished two ways: leverage or increase risk - or a combination of both.
Wall Street, as it always has, stepped up to create products that were in high demand. They expounded upon an idea called securitization. Essentially, a securitization pools a bunch of assets together and chops them up into different tranches. The theory involves a diversification risk. The highest tranches are the safest in that they take the last losses. It was a huge hit - higher returns from riskier assets but with less risk. Wall Street firms repackaged all kinds of assets: home mortgages, commerical mortgages, high yield bonds, investment grade bonds, airplane leases, etc. Wall Street was the conduit, not the originator. These firms are underwriting the securities on behalf of other institutions including the government sponsored entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I don't want to blast the securitization process completely. Securitizations work - they provide higher returns with less risk if held through maturity. They do have a flaw, but I'll get back to that.
For now, back to politics and the real problem.
Starting as early as 1999, Congress (led by the Democrats) sought to further home ownership particularly among low income households. Flashback to September 30, 1999, when the New York Times wrote the following:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9c0de7db153ef933a0575ac0a96f958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print
"In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.
The action ... will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans."
"Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers.
''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''
There's a reason these sub-prime borrowers pay higher rates and require larger down payments. They are riskier. Continuing:
"In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's. "
"said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. 'If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.'"
"Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings. "
With Fannie and Freddie lowering its credit standards, loans that would normally be held by the issuing banks (and thus highly scrutinized by credit officers) were being instead sold to investors into packaged deals. Credit Rating Agencies such as Standard & Poor's and Moody's, were fooled by the structure of these securities, and failed to do proper due diligence into the risks. Consequently, the new riskier securities were rated the same investment grade ratings as their previously less risky peers. On top of that, there are companies that insure the performance of the top tier tranche bonds. Companies such as Ambac wrote insurance (in exchange for premiums) guaranteeing the recovery of principal of the highest tranches. Such insurance-wrapped securities almost automatically received AAA ratings from the rating agencies.
Investors, seeking higher yields, were not only gobbling up these securitized bonds under the impression they couldn't lose, but they were suplementing their returns by adding leverage (using borrowed money to purchase securities). Those with the best cost of capital yielded the greatest advantage in these securities. No private companies in the U.S. have better costs of capital than the major financial institutions - such as the major money center banks and companies such AIG.
The logic went as follows: Take the AAA-rated top tier tranche of a package of mortgages. They incur the last losses - meaning, the tranches junior to you have to lose all their principal, before you lose a dollar of yours. On top of that safety feature, the principal and interst of your tranche is insured by a AAA-rated company. If you made the assumption that you could not lose more than $2 of every $100 invested (with the expectation that in fact you would not lose but rather make money), you could borrow $95, and risk less than half of your capital. If your cost of borrowing those funds is 4% and security yields 5%, the return on your capital would be 24%. Had you borrowed no money, and bought the same investment for cash, your return would have been only 5%. 24% vs 5% on a security that if held to maturity had practically no risk given the historical default rate of mortgages in the US. Or so seemed. There were a number of flaws not factored.
First, the monoline insurance companies wrote more insurance than they could reasonably cover. Second, many of the investors funded their borrowings with short term rates which meant they did not lock in their yield advantage. Third, the risk profile of the newest mortgage borrowers were a lot worse than in the past. Fourth, the return parameters of the trade require the securities to be held to maturity.
More on "Wall Street" in a bit. Back to the average consumer.
The demand from investors created an almost insatiable desire for securitized paper and thus mortgage paper. Congress' mandate for the GSEs was a great source of that paper. Orginators of debt were no longer on the hook for the mortgages they sourced. Your hometown bank made money on your mortgage whether you paid it off or not. It created a disincentive to perform proper due diligence at the local level. Local banks relied on a plethora of mortgage brokers who also had no incentive to make sure the the borrower had the ability to repay. The competition to generate mortgages was intense, and devises such as no-doc loans, or no down payment loans sprung up all over the place. These mortgages were sold by the local originator, packaged into securities and sold across the world. As long as real estate prices rose and everyone paid their mortgages, it was a great system.
Consumers were like kids in a candy store - eating until they threw up. People were caught up in the theory that real estate only went up, and bought homes they had no reasonable right purchasing. TV shows such as TLC's "Flip that House" or "The Property Ladder" were obvious signs that the internet bubble had been replaced by a housing bubble.
In the meantime, some in Congress were issuing warnings about the government's responsibility (and potential financial backing) regarding the GSEs. However, any attempt to reform was thwarted by those in Washington that didn't want the gravy train to end. Note that following quotes:
Sept 10, 2003: Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.): "The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disaster scenarios. . . ."
Rep. Maxine Waters (D., Calif.), "if it ain't broke, why do you want to fix it? Have the GSEs ever missed their housing goals?"
Sept 25, 2003: Rep. Frank: "I do think I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness that we have in OCC [Office of the Comptroller of the Currency] and OTS [Office of Thrift Supervision]. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing. . . ."
Rep. Gregory Meeks, (D., N.Y.): "I have sat through nearly a dozen hearings where, frankly, we were trying to fix something that wasn't broke. Housing is the economic engine of our economy, and in no community does this engine need to work more than in mine. With last week's hurricane and the drain on the economy from the war in Iraq, we should do no harm to these GSEs... we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and in particular at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines. "
Rep. Frank: "I believe there has been more alarm raised about potential unsafety and unsoundness than, in fact, exists."
Oct 16, 2003: Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.): "And my worry is that we're using the recent safety and soundness concerns, particularly with Freddie, and with a poor regulator, as a straw man to curtail Fannie and Freddie's mission. And I don't think there is any doubt that there are some in the administration who don't believe in Fannie and Freddie altogether, say let the private sector do it. That would be sort of an ideological position."
Feb 24, 2004: Sen. Thomas Carper (D., Del.): "What is the wrong that we're trying to right here? What is the potential harm that we're trying to avert?"
Sen. Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.): To Fed Chairman Greenspan, "obviously this is one of the great success stories of all time. And we don't want to lose sight of that and [what] has been pointed out by all of our witnesses here, obviously, the 70% of Americans who own their own homes today, in no small measure, due because of the work that's been done here. And that shouldn't be lost in this debate and discussion. . . ."
Apr 6, 2005: Sen. Schumer: "I'll lay my marker down right now ... I don't think they need dramatic restructuring in terms of their mission, in terms of their role in the secondary mortgage market, et cetera."
Jun 16, 2006: Sen. Schumer: "I think a lot of people are being opportunistic, . . . throwing out the baby with the bathwater, saying, 'Let's dramatically restructure Fannie and Freddie,' when that is not what's called for as a result of what's happened here. . . ."
Sen. Chuck Hagel (R., Neb.): "Mr. Chairman, what we're dealing with is an astounding failure of management and board responsibility, driven clearly by self interest and greed. And when we reference this issue in the context of -- the best we can say is, "It's no Enron." Now, that's a hell of a high standard."
In fact, there were major problems brewing at Fannie and Freddie. The eventual bailout of these two firms were just the beginning of what turned out to be a massive taxpayer rescue package. To quote the Wall Street Journal, "The members [of Congress] fought furiously against any attempt to make Fan and Fred less dangerous. The Bush administration was on the right side of this debate for eight years, as was the late Clinton Treasury [Department]. This was a scandal in plain sight that all but a few ignored. And now, having done so much to create this mess, many of the same Members who protected Fan and Fred are denouncing the 'bailout' as a favor to Wall Street."
But I'm getting ahead of myself.
The problems begun to emerge in early 2007, when the housing bubble burst, and "homeowners" began to default on their mortgage. Some were so far under water on the enormous mortgages they had taken, they just walked away. Defaults and foreclosures were at historical highs. Fannie and Freddie failed, and required the government to follow through on their implicit guarantee.
The monoline insurance companies that had insured the highest tranches of paper, were in sudden need to raise additional capital to sustain their ratings. Most failed to retain their investment grade status, and some filed for bankruptcy. That left holders of previously insured paper with the need to get out. The market for such paper is very illiquid to begin with, and in this case there were no buyers. The value of the once stable paper plummeted. Recall that calculation of returns above. However, this time, forget that the paper can only go down $2. This time, take it down $10 - or $20 - or more. All of your equity is gone. Not only was the quality of the paper not as good as expected, but too many people wanted to sell. Ironically, like many of the homeowners, funds that held these securities were under water, or out of business.
Investors (those that couldn't just close their doors) and banks needed to raise cash to pay off the debt they owed. Banks, in particular, need to keep certain levels of capital to be considered solvent. There is an accounting rule called "mark to market." It basically means that even if you have reasonable belief that a security is worth a certain value, you must attribute the price that the market places on the security when valuing your own assets. Consequently, if a bank holds $100 worth of mortgage securities that it believes will ultimately pay off $90, and another bank sells a similar security for $80, the first bank must mark their position at $80 - taking a $10 loss. That loss eates into its capital base, and requires it to raise more capital. One way is to raise equity in the market, another is to sell assets. So that bank sells its $80 asset for $70. Now everyone needs to mark their position at $70, and the cycle continues. It's not that simple in practice, but that's the basics. Stock investors who forsaw the death-spiral were shorting financial stocks, and clients fearful of bankruptcy were pulling money. That in turn led to further ratings declines which required more capital. And so on, and so on, and so on. In the end, securities that in time could be worth $100, were being valued at $22.
[It should be noted that this didn't only happen with mortgages. For instance, another problem was CDOs, which are securitized high yield paper. As the economy began to falter, high yield bond spreads rose, and a similar pattern occurred.]
In the end, Wall Street took the hit, because they were the ones that needed "saving." The financial system is the life blood of the US economy from Boston's Back Bay to San Fran's Mission Hill and everything in between. By federally assisting those that were so severely hurt by the declining value of such securities, you prevent the problem from ruining "Main Street."
Bubbles and Panics are systematic problems. Wall Street is not without fault, but this is not a "Wall Street Fat Cat"-created problem. It began with the average American, was fueled by Congress mandating a need to subsidize low income home ownership, and its subsequent risks were highly underestimated by investors who were seeking better return for their institutional clients, who collect and allocate money for average Americans.
"Washington's unwillingness to tackle the tough problems for decades, has left us in the worst economic crisis since the great depression."
He's completely right, but for the complete opposite reason than his meaning. The implication made by a Democrat Presidential candidate is that the problems of today's financial markets exist because of "failed" policies of the Republican White House. It's crap, and it only panders to the lowest common denominator that is American politics. It's the concept that, "If I say it, it must be true." Obama's not the only politican seeking to lay blame. It's human nature to seek blame, but in a election period, everyone looks to blame someone but themselves, or their associates. However, here are the facts:
The financial problems have many of its roots in the pre- and post-dot com bubble burst. The inflated (and somewhat fictional) economy that was the late 1990s, had already begun to raise real estate prices. Feeling newly flush with money, average American began bidding up real estate. The term "McMansion" came on the scene as the neuvo riche tore down old homes and built monstrosities in their place.
When the technology stocks came crashing in, the average person who had been burned investing in hyped stock valuations, re-evaluated how he or she looked at investing and assets in general. Ownership of companies full of "air" was out-of-favor, and hard and tangible assets became important. I heard my mother-in-law say numerous times the mantra, "real estate is the best investment." Home ownership after the dot com crash became even more important.
In wake of the post 9/11 economic recession, the Federal Reserve kept interest rates extremely low which continued to fuel the public's eagerness to own hard assets. Monetary policy encouraged banks to lend. Mortgage rates were already low, and the public pounced on the opportunity to buy houses. Standard supply and demand in action drove housing prices up even further.
As the economy bouced back from the 9/11 lows and began to surge post the Bush tax cuts, the Federal Reserve sought to reign in economic growth. Without getting too much into monetary policy and the Federal Reserve: their actions were effective on the short end of the interest curve, but not the long end. Developing nations were booming, and investing in U.S. Treasury Securities. Long-term rates were remaining stubbornly low, and Fed Chief, Alan Greenspan, referred to it as a "conunderum." Mortgage rates are based off long-term rates, not short-term ones. Consequently, the Fed, which hoped to pop the housing bubble, was ineffective.
Low interest rates and easily available, cheap corporate credit were allowing companies (even ones with shaky balance sheets) to refinance and borrow at low rates. Stock valuations were high, and returns on bonds were quite low. On top of that, low volatility in the market reduced risk premiums on traditionally risky investments. Basically, proper returns on investments were becoming harder and harder to come by. Traditional institutional investors (pension funds, mutual funds, endowments, banks and hedge funds) sought new ways to improve their returns. It can be accomplished two ways: leverage or increase risk - or a combination of both.
Wall Street, as it always has, stepped up to create products that were in high demand. They expounded upon an idea called securitization. Essentially, a securitization pools a bunch of assets together and chops them up into different tranches. The theory involves a diversification risk. The highest tranches are the safest in that they take the last losses. It was a huge hit - higher returns from riskier assets but with less risk. Wall Street firms repackaged all kinds of assets: home mortgages, commerical mortgages, high yield bonds, investment grade bonds, airplane leases, etc. Wall Street was the conduit, not the originator. These firms are underwriting the securities on behalf of other institutions including the government sponsored entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I don't want to blast the securitization process completely. Securitizations work - they provide higher returns with less risk if held through maturity. They do have a flaw, but I'll get back to that.
For now, back to politics and the real problem.
Starting as early as 1999, Congress (led by the Democrats) sought to further home ownership particularly among low income households. Flashback to September 30, 1999, when the New York Times wrote the following:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9c0de7db153ef933a0575ac0a96f958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print
"In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.
The action ... will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans."
"Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers.
''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''
There's a reason these sub-prime borrowers pay higher rates and require larger down payments. They are riskier. Continuing:
"In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's. "
"said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. 'If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.'"
"Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings. "
With Fannie and Freddie lowering its credit standards, loans that would normally be held by the issuing banks (and thus highly scrutinized by credit officers) were being instead sold to investors into packaged deals. Credit Rating Agencies such as Standard & Poor's and Moody's, were fooled by the structure of these securities, and failed to do proper due diligence into the risks. Consequently, the new riskier securities were rated the same investment grade ratings as their previously less risky peers. On top of that, there are companies that insure the performance of the top tier tranche bonds. Companies such as Ambac wrote insurance (in exchange for premiums) guaranteeing the recovery of principal of the highest tranches. Such insurance-wrapped securities almost automatically received AAA ratings from the rating agencies.
Investors, seeking higher yields, were not only gobbling up these securitized bonds under the impression they couldn't lose, but they were suplementing their returns by adding leverage (using borrowed money to purchase securities). Those with the best cost of capital yielded the greatest advantage in these securities. No private companies in the U.S. have better costs of capital than the major financial institutions - such as the major money center banks and companies such AIG.
The logic went as follows: Take the AAA-rated top tier tranche of a package of mortgages. They incur the last losses - meaning, the tranches junior to you have to lose all their principal, before you lose a dollar of yours. On top of that safety feature, the principal and interst of your tranche is insured by a AAA-rated company. If you made the assumption that you could not lose more than $2 of every $100 invested (with the expectation that in fact you would not lose but rather make money), you could borrow $95, and risk less than half of your capital. If your cost of borrowing those funds is 4% and security yields 5%, the return on your capital would be 24%. Had you borrowed no money, and bought the same investment for cash, your return would have been only 5%. 24% vs 5% on a security that if held to maturity had practically no risk given the historical default rate of mortgages in the US. Or so seemed. There were a number of flaws not factored.
First, the monoline insurance companies wrote more insurance than they could reasonably cover. Second, many of the investors funded their borrowings with short term rates which meant they did not lock in their yield advantage. Third, the risk profile of the newest mortgage borrowers were a lot worse than in the past. Fourth, the return parameters of the trade require the securities to be held to maturity.
More on "Wall Street" in a bit. Back to the average consumer.
The demand from investors created an almost insatiable desire for securitized paper and thus mortgage paper. Congress' mandate for the GSEs was a great source of that paper. Orginators of debt were no longer on the hook for the mortgages they sourced. Your hometown bank made money on your mortgage whether you paid it off or not. It created a disincentive to perform proper due diligence at the local level. Local banks relied on a plethora of mortgage brokers who also had no incentive to make sure the the borrower had the ability to repay. The competition to generate mortgages was intense, and devises such as no-doc loans, or no down payment loans sprung up all over the place. These mortgages were sold by the local originator, packaged into securities and sold across the world. As long as real estate prices rose and everyone paid their mortgages, it was a great system.
Consumers were like kids in a candy store - eating until they threw up. People were caught up in the theory that real estate only went up, and bought homes they had no reasonable right purchasing. TV shows such as TLC's "Flip that House" or "The Property Ladder" were obvious signs that the internet bubble had been replaced by a housing bubble.
In the meantime, some in Congress were issuing warnings about the government's responsibility (and potential financial backing) regarding the GSEs. However, any attempt to reform was thwarted by those in Washington that didn't want the gravy train to end. Note that following quotes:
Sept 10, 2003: Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.): "The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disaster scenarios. . . ."
Rep. Maxine Waters (D., Calif.), "if it ain't broke, why do you want to fix it? Have the GSEs ever missed their housing goals?"
Sept 25, 2003: Rep. Frank: "I do think I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness that we have in OCC [Office of the Comptroller of the Currency] and OTS [Office of Thrift Supervision]. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing. . . ."
Rep. Gregory Meeks, (D., N.Y.): "I have sat through nearly a dozen hearings where, frankly, we were trying to fix something that wasn't broke. Housing is the economic engine of our economy, and in no community does this engine need to work more than in mine. With last week's hurricane and the drain on the economy from the war in Iraq, we should do no harm to these GSEs... we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and in particular at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines. "
Rep. Frank: "I believe there has been more alarm raised about potential unsafety and unsoundness than, in fact, exists."
Oct 16, 2003: Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.): "And my worry is that we're using the recent safety and soundness concerns, particularly with Freddie, and with a poor regulator, as a straw man to curtail Fannie and Freddie's mission. And I don't think there is any doubt that there are some in the administration who don't believe in Fannie and Freddie altogether, say let the private sector do it. That would be sort of an ideological position."
Feb 24, 2004: Sen. Thomas Carper (D., Del.): "What is the wrong that we're trying to right here? What is the potential harm that we're trying to avert?"
Sen. Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.): To Fed Chairman Greenspan, "obviously this is one of the great success stories of all time. And we don't want to lose sight of that and [what] has been pointed out by all of our witnesses here, obviously, the 70% of Americans who own their own homes today, in no small measure, due because of the work that's been done here. And that shouldn't be lost in this debate and discussion. . . ."
Apr 6, 2005: Sen. Schumer: "I'll lay my marker down right now ... I don't think they need dramatic restructuring in terms of their mission, in terms of their role in the secondary mortgage market, et cetera."
Jun 16, 2006: Sen. Schumer: "I think a lot of people are being opportunistic, . . . throwing out the baby with the bathwater, saying, 'Let's dramatically restructure Fannie and Freddie,' when that is not what's called for as a result of what's happened here. . . ."
Sen. Chuck Hagel (R., Neb.): "Mr. Chairman, what we're dealing with is an astounding failure of management and board responsibility, driven clearly by self interest and greed. And when we reference this issue in the context of -- the best we can say is, "It's no Enron." Now, that's a hell of a high standard."
In fact, there were major problems brewing at Fannie and Freddie. The eventual bailout of these two firms were just the beginning of what turned out to be a massive taxpayer rescue package. To quote the Wall Street Journal, "The members [of Congress] fought furiously against any attempt to make Fan and Fred less dangerous. The Bush administration was on the right side of this debate for eight years, as was the late Clinton Treasury [Department]. This was a scandal in plain sight that all but a few ignored. And now, having done so much to create this mess, many of the same Members who protected Fan and Fred are denouncing the 'bailout' as a favor to Wall Street."
But I'm getting ahead of myself.
The problems begun to emerge in early 2007, when the housing bubble burst, and "homeowners" began to default on their mortgage. Some were so far under water on the enormous mortgages they had taken, they just walked away. Defaults and foreclosures were at historical highs. Fannie and Freddie failed, and required the government to follow through on their implicit guarantee.
The monoline insurance companies that had insured the highest tranches of paper, were in sudden need to raise additional capital to sustain their ratings. Most failed to retain their investment grade status, and some filed for bankruptcy. That left holders of previously insured paper with the need to get out. The market for such paper is very illiquid to begin with, and in this case there were no buyers. The value of the once stable paper plummeted. Recall that calculation of returns above. However, this time, forget that the paper can only go down $2. This time, take it down $10 - or $20 - or more. All of your equity is gone. Not only was the quality of the paper not as good as expected, but too many people wanted to sell. Ironically, like many of the homeowners, funds that held these securities were under water, or out of business.
Investors (those that couldn't just close their doors) and banks needed to raise cash to pay off the debt they owed. Banks, in particular, need to keep certain levels of capital to be considered solvent. There is an accounting rule called "mark to market." It basically means that even if you have reasonable belief that a security is worth a certain value, you must attribute the price that the market places on the security when valuing your own assets. Consequently, if a bank holds $100 worth of mortgage securities that it believes will ultimately pay off $90, and another bank sells a similar security for $80, the first bank must mark their position at $80 - taking a $10 loss. That loss eates into its capital base, and requires it to raise more capital. One way is to raise equity in the market, another is to sell assets. So that bank sells its $80 asset for $70. Now everyone needs to mark their position at $70, and the cycle continues. It's not that simple in practice, but that's the basics. Stock investors who forsaw the death-spiral were shorting financial stocks, and clients fearful of bankruptcy were pulling money. That in turn led to further ratings declines which required more capital. And so on, and so on, and so on. In the end, securities that in time could be worth $100, were being valued at $22.
[It should be noted that this didn't only happen with mortgages. For instance, another problem was CDOs, which are securitized high yield paper. As the economy began to falter, high yield bond spreads rose, and a similar pattern occurred.]
In the end, Wall Street took the hit, because they were the ones that needed "saving." The financial system is the life blood of the US economy from Boston's Back Bay to San Fran's Mission Hill and everything in between. By federally assisting those that were so severely hurt by the declining value of such securities, you prevent the problem from ruining "Main Street."
Bubbles and Panics are systematic problems. Wall Street is not without fault, but this is not a "Wall Street Fat Cat"-created problem. It began with the average American, was fueled by Congress mandating a need to subsidize low income home ownership, and its subsequent risks were highly underestimated by investors who were seeking better return for their institutional clients, who collect and allocate money for average Americans.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
I'm Back
Ok, ok, ok.
I'm back. I've been out of work since the Spring, and its funny, when you're not going into the office and sitting in front of a PC all day, there are some innane things you just don't do. Blogging appears to be one of them.
I'm still not officially working, but frankly, not working in this market may be the best thing for me. Yes, I'm getting a little bored being at home, but the people I know working are ripping their hair out.
So a few notes:
1. The Paulson bailout plan was very needed
2. The problems weren't created by a greedy Wall Street - everyone loves a scapegoat
3. More regulation would NOT really have stopped this financial mess
4. I'm highly disgusted with the House Republicans
5. Chip Carey and his partner are terrible MLB play-by-play announcers
6. Two reasons I don't like the Angels:
a. Thunder Sticks
b. The Rally Monkey
7. No, Sarah Palin isn't ready to be President tomorrow, and I don't like her folksy "charm"
8. Sarah Palin isn't as stupid as she is being made out to be, and she can be a perfectly capable VP
9. Is there a more annoying player in baseball than K-Rod? Yes K, not A.
10. How great is it that the last game in the House that Ruth Built had no meaning?
11. I'm not overly distressed that Tom Brady is out for the year
12. I do, however, expect the Patriots to show up each week, unlike the Miami game
13. There's a great book that is part math, part finance, part philosophy - The Black Swan. It nailed the banking problems a year before, even though its not the thesis of the book.
14. My golf handicap is down 4 strokes since leaving my job
15. The Celtics are in training camp after winning the World Championship, and I don't really care. Boy how things have changed.
16. There was humorous, actual discussion in New York that Hank Steinbrenner should "not fire Joe Girardi." Boy, how things don't change.
17. The family went to a Marlins game in Miami. We were on the Jumbotron, but I'm not sure it was a big deal. I think all 5,000 fans there made it on the screen.
18. Pro Football Prospectus 2008 is in bookstores. It marks the third nationally published book which lists me as an author. 2007 and 2006 and the others.
19. I miss Manny. I hate how things ended. I understand he needed to go.
20. Stocks have gotten crushed. The bailout plan will help, but the economy is still rough in its own right.
21. Remember, stocks will begin to upturn BEFORE a recession is over. I have no specific picks
22. It's disappointing that my kids are getting into baseball, and can't hardly see a single playoff game
23. I'll post again before another six months is up.
I'm back. I've been out of work since the Spring, and its funny, when you're not going into the office and sitting in front of a PC all day, there are some innane things you just don't do. Blogging appears to be one of them.
I'm still not officially working, but frankly, not working in this market may be the best thing for me. Yes, I'm getting a little bored being at home, but the people I know working are ripping their hair out.
So a few notes:
1. The Paulson bailout plan was very needed
2. The problems weren't created by a greedy Wall Street - everyone loves a scapegoat
3. More regulation would NOT really have stopped this financial mess
4. I'm highly disgusted with the House Republicans
5. Chip Carey and his partner are terrible MLB play-by-play announcers
6. Two reasons I don't like the Angels:
a. Thunder Sticks
b. The Rally Monkey
7. No, Sarah Palin isn't ready to be President tomorrow, and I don't like her folksy "charm"
8. Sarah Palin isn't as stupid as she is being made out to be, and she can be a perfectly capable VP
9. Is there a more annoying player in baseball than K-Rod? Yes K, not A.
10. How great is it that the last game in the House that Ruth Built had no meaning?
11. I'm not overly distressed that Tom Brady is out for the year
12. I do, however, expect the Patriots to show up each week, unlike the Miami game
13. There's a great book that is part math, part finance, part philosophy - The Black Swan. It nailed the banking problems a year before, even though its not the thesis of the book.
14. My golf handicap is down 4 strokes since leaving my job
15. The Celtics are in training camp after winning the World Championship, and I don't really care. Boy how things have changed.
16. There was humorous, actual discussion in New York that Hank Steinbrenner should "not fire Joe Girardi." Boy, how things don't change.
17. The family went to a Marlins game in Miami. We were on the Jumbotron, but I'm not sure it was a big deal. I think all 5,000 fans there made it on the screen.
18. Pro Football Prospectus 2008 is in bookstores. It marks the third nationally published book which lists me as an author. 2007 and 2006 and the others.
19. I miss Manny. I hate how things ended. I understand he needed to go.
20. Stocks have gotten crushed. The bailout plan will help, but the economy is still rough in its own right.
21. Remember, stocks will begin to upturn BEFORE a recession is over. I have no specific picks
22. It's disappointing that my kids are getting into baseball, and can't hardly see a single playoff game
23. I'll post again before another six months is up.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Ketchup
Time for some rambling catch up.
Shortly after losing her first tooth, Emily almost immediately lost her second one. Given the current credit crunch, the tooth fairy is complaining about being liquid.
We spent the afternoon at the Museum of Natural History last Sunday. Our day started with an IMAX movie. Here I thought that an IMAX movie about Dinosaurs would be big, loud and exciting. Nope. It was a historical narrative about the first paleontologists. Boring. Katie and I couldn't wait to leave. Surprisingly, Emily found it interesting and asked a lot of questions. Although they enjoyed seeing the animals of North America and Asia exhibits, most of our time was spent looking at Dinosaur fossils. It was quite entertaining.
We may have skiied for the last time this season. Katie and I hiked up to Mohawk Mtn in northern Connecticut (Emily was sick). It turned out to be 'Customer Appreciation Day' and lift tickets were free. Nice! We traversed the whole mountain (Greens, Blues and Blacks). The conditions were decent given the reasonably warm weather (high 40s); however, it was really windy. Ice pellets blowing into our faces cut the day short, but sealed the deal that we will be skiing lots next season.
Breakfast and Baseball - Yes, we all got up at 6am on Tuesday and Wednesday to watch the Sox open their season in Japan. The kids were excited and showed a real interest in learning the specifics of the game. Katie starts playing softball this Spring, so that may have something to do with it. Emily has always shown an interest in the game. She starts kickball this Spring.
Emily is the cartwheel queen. She is taking a gymnastics class, and Soooo want to be able to do a cartwheel she practices ALL THE TIME. if she has 5 minutes to spare, you can count on her lining up and trying to cartwheel. She's getting there, but isn't there yet. Watching how into it Emily has been, Katie has now joined the class.
We saw "No Country for Old Men" on DVD. Good movie (violent), but wow the end totally lost me. Anyone wants to explain it, feel free.
Shortly after losing her first tooth, Emily almost immediately lost her second one. Given the current credit crunch, the tooth fairy is complaining about being liquid.
We spent the afternoon at the Museum of Natural History last Sunday. Our day started with an IMAX movie. Here I thought that an IMAX movie about Dinosaurs would be big, loud and exciting. Nope. It was a historical narrative about the first paleontologists. Boring. Katie and I couldn't wait to leave. Surprisingly, Emily found it interesting and asked a lot of questions. Although they enjoyed seeing the animals of North America and Asia exhibits, most of our time was spent looking at Dinosaur fossils. It was quite entertaining.
We may have skiied for the last time this season. Katie and I hiked up to Mohawk Mtn in northern Connecticut (Emily was sick). It turned out to be 'Customer Appreciation Day' and lift tickets were free. Nice! We traversed the whole mountain (Greens, Blues and Blacks). The conditions were decent given the reasonably warm weather (high 40s); however, it was really windy. Ice pellets blowing into our faces cut the day short, but sealed the deal that we will be skiing lots next season.
Breakfast and Baseball - Yes, we all got up at 6am on Tuesday and Wednesday to watch the Sox open their season in Japan. The kids were excited and showed a real interest in learning the specifics of the game. Katie starts playing softball this Spring, so that may have something to do with it. Emily has always shown an interest in the game. She starts kickball this Spring.
Emily is the cartwheel queen. She is taking a gymnastics class, and Soooo want to be able to do a cartwheel she practices ALL THE TIME. if she has 5 minutes to spare, you can count on her lining up and trying to cartwheel. She's getting there, but isn't there yet. Watching how into it Emily has been, Katie has now joined the class.
We saw "No Country for Old Men" on DVD. Good movie (violent), but wow the end totally lost me. Anyone wants to explain it, feel free.
Good Read
Just finished a very good book, Alan Greenspan - Age of Turbulance. It is part memoir, part economics text. Maybe you have to be an economics wonk to enjoy it, but the book is very well written and is an easy read. The first third, Greenspan talks of his past and his rise to the role of Chairman of the Federal Reserve. The second third is a interesting view of financial events from the eyes of the Federal Reserve. Recall that Greenspan's tenure spanned the presidencies of Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II. Reading his recollection of 1991 and the savings and loan crisis was particularly insightful given the current economic turmoil. What made is most ineresting was the fact that it was written before the current turmoil unfolded. The final third of the book is Greenspan's treatise on current economics and world developments. He expounds on the futures of China and Europe. He provides interesting insight on the futures of the U.S. Dollar, Social Security and Energy. This last part may only be interesting to an economics major, but its not written like a textbook.It's thick and heavy, but worth the weight.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Loth Tooth
Emily lost her first tooth this morning. The darn thing has been wiggly for three or four weeks. In fact, the new tooth has been growing in behind it (causing the delay, I guess).
Finally, in her sleep, the tooth came out. Luckily, she didn't swollow it! Rather, she felt it moving around reach in ... and was very excited to see it was out. She came bolting into our room at 4:45am - "Look, my tooth came out!" It was very cute, even for quarter of five.
Finally, in her sleep, the tooth came out. Luckily, she didn't swollow it! Rather, she felt it moving around reach in ... and was very excited to see it was out. She came bolting into our room at 4:45am - "Look, my tooth came out!" It was very cute, even for quarter of five.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Oh it Hurst
Side comment based on a Globe Red Sox Blog post:
"Bruce Hurst, who had a 145-113 record in 379 games over his major league career, was hired by the team to be a special instructor for player development. In the role, Hurst will travel around to minor league clubs a couple of times a month to help out with minor league players, evaluating their development. With an 11 year old child at home, he wasn't interested in going full-time on the road, but did want to become involved.
Hurst played for the Sox from 1980-1988. He is coming off four years as the pitching coach for the China national team. "
Huh? Wasn't interested in a full-time position because he has an 11-year old child? Ummm. He's spent the last four years in CHINA! He had a 7, 8, 9 and 10-year old child during each of those times.
"Bruce Hurst, who had a 145-113 record in 379 games over his major league career, was hired by the team to be a special instructor for player development. In the role, Hurst will travel around to minor league clubs a couple of times a month to help out with minor league players, evaluating their development. With an 11 year old child at home, he wasn't interested in going full-time on the road, but did want to become involved.
Hurst played for the Sox from 1980-1988. He is coming off four years as the pitching coach for the China national team. "
Huh? Wasn't interested in a full-time position because he has an 11-year old child? Ummm. He's spent the last four years in CHINA! He had a 7, 8, 9 and 10-year old child during each of those times.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Best Pizza Slices Evah
I took the kids skiing to Shawnee Peak in Maine for the long weekend, and it was a blast. It was a long trip up, but we had the benefit of staying at my sister's awesome house up there. Overall, it was probably one of the most fun vacations we have had together and that includes two trips to Disney World.
The kids' skiing ability was amazing. They happily took on any challenge presented to them. We tackled greens, blues and even an occational black diamond [caveat - Shawnee's black diamonds are hardly mogul-filled cliffs, but rather green, blue and black are differentiated by degrees of steepness]. The kids just employed their pizza-slice skiing stance, and zig-zagged their way down the hill. Even when we took a black trail that was too steep and they fell a lot, they laughed it off. I, on the other hand, was able to ski off to the side, let them get ahead, and still enjoy the run. It was the best of all worlds. I don't think there was a section of the mountain that we didn't attack together. Their behavior was exemplary. There was no crying, whining, or frankly a discouraging word on the slopes. I was amazed. I really look forward to future skiing trips.
The kids' skiing ability was amazing. They happily took on any challenge presented to them. We tackled greens, blues and even an occational black diamond [caveat - Shawnee's black diamonds are hardly mogul-filled cliffs, but rather green, blue and black are differentiated by degrees of steepness]. The kids just employed their pizza-slice skiing stance, and zig-zagged their way down the hill. Even when we took a black trail that was too steep and they fell a lot, they laughed it off. I, on the other hand, was able to ski off to the side, let them get ahead, and still enjoy the run. It was the best of all worlds. I don't think there was a section of the mountain that we didn't attack together. Their behavior was exemplary. There was no crying, whining, or frankly a discouraging word on the slopes. I was amazed. I really look forward to future skiing trips.
Bizzaro Sports World
http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSN1416353120080215
In all of the pre-Super Bowl media hype, I read a story about Giants Defensive End Osi Umenyiora who grew up in Nigeria. When Osi was real young, his grandmother went to the United States and returned with a blanket with the Oakland Raiders logo embroddered on it as a gift. Osi had no idea who or what the Raiders were, but loved the logo. It wasn't until he came to the U.S. that he finally understood who and what the Raiders were.
After reading the above article link, can't you just imagine a Bizzaro sports world, where little children of third world countries are running around thinking about these great teams that never really existed. At least someone in the world can celebrate an undefeated Patriots season. However, these kids probably think the Buffalo Bills are four time Super Bowl champs, and the Colorado Rockies are the 2007 World Series Champions.
In all of the pre-Super Bowl media hype, I read a story about Giants Defensive End Osi Umenyiora who grew up in Nigeria. When Osi was real young, his grandmother went to the United States and returned with a blanket with the Oakland Raiders logo embroddered on it as a gift. Osi had no idea who or what the Raiders were, but loved the logo. It wasn't until he came to the U.S. that he finally understood who and what the Raiders were.
After reading the above article link, can't you just imagine a Bizzaro sports world, where little children of third world countries are running around thinking about these great teams that never really existed. At least someone in the world can celebrate an undefeated Patriots season. However, these kids probably think the Buffalo Bills are four time Super Bowl champs, and the Colorado Rockies are the 2007 World Series Champions.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Liar Liar
We watched the all-important Congressional Baseball Steroids Hearing at work yesterday. I am puzzled by the partisan division on this topic and am frankly dismayed by the Republican approach. They looked like fools in their questioning.
I'm no fan of Dan Shaughnessy, but this exert from the Boston Globe today says it all:
"It was pretty clear that most of the congressmen and women came to the hearing with their minds made up. Clemens last week visited more than 20 representatives - an outrageous parade that compromised the hearing and painted numerous elected officials as fanboy/sycophants. Listening to the questions yesterday, you could pretty much tell which reps got autographed baseballs and signed photos for their office walls.
Representative Dan Burton, Republican of Indiana, was buffoon of the day (did you notice the Lone Star cuff links?), bashing the media, reminding us that Roger is a "titan" in baseball, and invoking the old Ray Donovan question - "Where do I get my reputation back?" Burton was shocked, shocked, that McNamee lied to reporters when asked about steroids back in the pre-Mitchell days."
Please. I give you this: McNamee loved Clemens and how Clemens treated him. He was confronted by Federal Marshalls with proposition of 'tell the truth or go to jail.' He gave up Pettitte and Knoblauch - and potentially some others. Clemens took care of him, why give up Clemens? If you say nothing, Clemens remains your friend and helps you. Why drag Clemens in even if he is guilty? Because you know that Pettitte will tell investigators that Clemens is guilty, and if that happens and McNamee said he was clean - McNamee goes to jail! There is NO motivation for McNamee to lie about Clemens when the other guys all admitted that he was telling the truth!
All that said: Our government has better things to do with its time.
I'm no fan of Dan Shaughnessy, but this exert from the Boston Globe today says it all:
"It was pretty clear that most of the congressmen and women came to the hearing with their minds made up. Clemens last week visited more than 20 representatives - an outrageous parade that compromised the hearing and painted numerous elected officials as fanboy/sycophants. Listening to the questions yesterday, you could pretty much tell which reps got autographed baseballs and signed photos for their office walls.
Representative Dan Burton, Republican of Indiana, was buffoon of the day (did you notice the Lone Star cuff links?), bashing the media, reminding us that Roger is a "titan" in baseball, and invoking the old Ray Donovan question - "Where do I get my reputation back?" Burton was shocked, shocked, that McNamee lied to reporters when asked about steroids back in the pre-Mitchell days."
Please. I give you this: McNamee loved Clemens and how Clemens treated him. He was confronted by Federal Marshalls with proposition of 'tell the truth or go to jail.' He gave up Pettitte and Knoblauch - and potentially some others. Clemens took care of him, why give up Clemens? If you say nothing, Clemens remains your friend and helps you. Why drag Clemens in even if he is guilty? Because you know that Pettitte will tell investigators that Clemens is guilty, and if that happens and McNamee said he was clean - McNamee goes to jail! There is NO motivation for McNamee to lie about Clemens when the other guys all admitted that he was telling the truth!
All that said: Our government has better things to do with its time.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Super Bowl Rehash - Part I
Watching a game in person provides a different perspective than watching it on TV. In person, you can watch certain aspects of the game, but miss how they fit into the big picture. Television allows you to see the action as well as the nuances that instant replay allow.
In the last week and a half, I had resolved myself to the fact that the Giants played a better game, and the Patriots came out flat. Living in New York, I don't hate the Giants (I only hate Tight End Jeremy Shocky, but that story is for another time). In fact, the Giants are my "favorite NFC team." Dubious praise, I realize, but given my feelings for some of the other New York teams, its a big step. If we had lost to the Green Bay Packers, it would have been easier because I wouldn't have to see all the hats, gear and TV coverage. However, inside my hurt that the Patriots lost, I actually have a sliver of happiness for Giants' fans.
However, I finally got the courage to watch Super Bowl XLII on TV. I can't believe we lost that game!
The Patriots first and last drives of the game were pure Patriot things of beauty. The middle was a misery of bad play calling mixed with terrible adjustments.
Let's look at the game in pieces:
First half:
At Football Outsiders, we have done work on what we refer to as fumble luck. In general, defenses and offenses have about equal odds of recovering a fumble, and therefore (1) fumbles are really bad for the offense, and (2) fumble recoveries are pure luck. The Giants fumbled two times in the first half. The first on their own 30, Bradshaw fumbled and Pierre Woods fell on the ball. At that point, the Patriots had good momentum, and deep in the Giants terrirory would surely have scored something. However, somehow, Bradshaw goes under Woods and takes the ball back. Fumble recovery luck is one thing, losing a fumble recovery when you are laying on the ball is in completely another realm! Later in te half, Thomas strip sack of Manning sent the ball flying. Vrabel has a lock on the ball, but one of the Giants is able to illegally bat it forward and Steve Smith recovers. It didn't lead to points, but it massively changed field position.
Manning threw one interception (actually it was really a Steve Smith drop), but should have thrown another. In the first half, while backpeddling, Manning lobbed up a duck into triple coverage, Randall Gay with a hurting arm, can't get his hands to close on it.
The Patriots final drive of the half was another good drive, but for a strip sack of Brady on the Giants 30. Fumble luck again falls in the Giants favor - New York recovers.
In the first half, the Patriots defense played quite well. Two of the biggest plays of the first half were big Giant push offs. The long bomb to Toomer is well documented. He clearly pushed Hobbs by the facemask to create seperation. However, what has gone unnoticed was the push off on the Giants first 1st down of the game. The situation was 3rd and 5, from mid-Giant territory. Burress ran a route that plowed into Randall Gay, and then he thrust his arms into Gay sending him back 1-2 yards, and proceeded to curl into the now open middle for a nine yard reception and a continuation of the Giants drive. Announcer Troy Aikman criticized Gay for "sitting on the route" and praised Burress for "finding the hole for a simple pitch and catch." This wasn't a ticky-tacky kind of thing, but a blatent push. I am surprised the announcers completely missed it.
Overall, both defenses played well in the first half. The Patriots were blitzing, but not getting to Manning. Nevertheless, they held the Giants to 3 points. The Giants were doing an excellent job of disguising the blitz. With a spread offense and quick throws, Brady was still able to make his quick reads. However, on longer developing plays, he didn't have enough time. They were trying a couple of different things on offense that didn't work two 3-and-outs. One drive was a lame attempt at running the ball, and one resulted in back-to-back sacks. Yet they had successes, and clearly halftime adjustments would be made.
If you had told me that the Giants fumbled twice, threw two interceptible balls, and only scored 3 points, I would have responded that the score must have been 21-3.
In the last week and a half, I had resolved myself to the fact that the Giants played a better game, and the Patriots came out flat. Living in New York, I don't hate the Giants (I only hate Tight End Jeremy Shocky, but that story is for another time). In fact, the Giants are my "favorite NFC team." Dubious praise, I realize, but given my feelings for some of the other New York teams, its a big step. If we had lost to the Green Bay Packers, it would have been easier because I wouldn't have to see all the hats, gear and TV coverage. However, inside my hurt that the Patriots lost, I actually have a sliver of happiness for Giants' fans.
However, I finally got the courage to watch Super Bowl XLII on TV. I can't believe we lost that game!
The Patriots first and last drives of the game were pure Patriot things of beauty. The middle was a misery of bad play calling mixed with terrible adjustments.
Let's look at the game in pieces:
First half:
At Football Outsiders, we have done work on what we refer to as fumble luck. In general, defenses and offenses have about equal odds of recovering a fumble, and therefore (1) fumbles are really bad for the offense, and (2) fumble recoveries are pure luck. The Giants fumbled two times in the first half. The first on their own 30, Bradshaw fumbled and Pierre Woods fell on the ball. At that point, the Patriots had good momentum, and deep in the Giants terrirory would surely have scored something. However, somehow, Bradshaw goes under Woods and takes the ball back. Fumble recovery luck is one thing, losing a fumble recovery when you are laying on the ball is in completely another realm! Later in te half, Thomas strip sack of Manning sent the ball flying. Vrabel has a lock on the ball, but one of the Giants is able to illegally bat it forward and Steve Smith recovers. It didn't lead to points, but it massively changed field position.
Manning threw one interception (actually it was really a Steve Smith drop), but should have thrown another. In the first half, while backpeddling, Manning lobbed up a duck into triple coverage, Randall Gay with a hurting arm, can't get his hands to close on it.
The Patriots final drive of the half was another good drive, but for a strip sack of Brady on the Giants 30. Fumble luck again falls in the Giants favor - New York recovers.
In the first half, the Patriots defense played quite well. Two of the biggest plays of the first half were big Giant push offs. The long bomb to Toomer is well documented. He clearly pushed Hobbs by the facemask to create seperation. However, what has gone unnoticed was the push off on the Giants first 1st down of the game. The situation was 3rd and 5, from mid-Giant territory. Burress ran a route that plowed into Randall Gay, and then he thrust his arms into Gay sending him back 1-2 yards, and proceeded to curl into the now open middle for a nine yard reception and a continuation of the Giants drive. Announcer Troy Aikman criticized Gay for "sitting on the route" and praised Burress for "finding the hole for a simple pitch and catch." This wasn't a ticky-tacky kind of thing, but a blatent push. I am surprised the announcers completely missed it.
Overall, both defenses played well in the first half. The Patriots were blitzing, but not getting to Manning. Nevertheless, they held the Giants to 3 points. The Giants were doing an excellent job of disguising the blitz. With a spread offense and quick throws, Brady was still able to make his quick reads. However, on longer developing plays, he didn't have enough time. They were trying a couple of different things on offense that didn't work two 3-and-outs. One drive was a lame attempt at running the ball, and one resulted in back-to-back sacks. Yet they had successes, and clearly halftime adjustments would be made.
If you had told me that the Giants fumbled twice, threw two interceptible balls, and only scored 3 points, I would have responded that the score must have been 21-3.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Ugh
That about sums its up. Ugh.
In the end, I pulled down some pretty good tickets to Super Bowl XLII. Club section for FACE value. Now that is a score. I must go out of my way to thank Chris, my brother-in-law, and Jonathan, his cousin, got tickets from ... the New York Giants. Oh, the irony. The package included a hotel room, and we were "guests of the Giants." Omen #1
The weekend started well. My buddy Ross and I were able to grab a direct flight to Phoenix on Friday morning. Once there, we took a trip out to the Giants team hotel to get credentials for transportation and such (we were politely denied because such credentials were for players and family only). However, we mulled about the team hotel and grabbed dinner at a nice restaurant there.
The place was empty, except one table next to us. That table was Cris Carter - the HBO Sports commentator and former NFL wide receiver who was nominated for the Hall of Fame, and due to hear the results the next day - and his entourage. They were relaxed and reminicing about great plays of Cris' career. As they got up to leave, I contemplated dropped a "good luck," but chose to just leave him alone. He didn't get in.
From there, we hit Scottsdale and soaked in the atmoshere. One club employee tells us that the Giants were all in there earlier in the week, but no one had seen the Patriots. That makes me feel good.
Saturday morning, we played Whisper Rock Golf Club. Whisper is a reclusive, private course that maybe sees 25 or 30 players a day. There were 270 golfers there for a shotgun start Saturday morning. I ran into Jerome Bettis, the former Steeler running back, and Kordell Stewart, the former Steeler QB, in the pro shop. Kordell is semi-famous/notorious for his postgame quote after the Patriots beat the Steelers a few years ago in the AFC Championship game, that "sometimes the better team doesn't win." Omen #2.
Preparing for the shotgun start, a rumor among the caddies is that Peyton and Eli are both there. Again, I feel good, but come to my senses and realize there is no way Eli is there on Saturday morning. He isn't. However, who stolls up to the golf cart in front of us - Peyton Manning. Joy that Peyton is playing golf on Super Bowl weekend - priceless. Omen? You tell me?
Golf was great. I never actually saw the final scorecard, but I played with mixed results. A couple of pars, a legitimate putt for birdie, plus a few triple bogies.
We had invites to the Marquis Jet/Jimmy Johnson party on Saturday. Originally, we thought it was Saturday night, but it turns out it was from 1-6. Grr. Golf ended around 3. We hustled over there for the last hour and a half. We heard Jimmy Johnson speak, but missed the speech given by, none other than, Bill Belichick. We heard from numerous attendees that Belichick was pleasant and ineresting. He toook questions and gave REAL answers. Hmmm. Belichick who has been strangely gitty all week, was pleasant ?!? That should have been Omen #3.
Saturday was capped off by a nice dinner with our friend Aaron who had hosted us for golf earlier in the day.
Game day started off well. Transportation to the satdium was a looming issue; however, we grabbed an open cab around 11am, and made our way. Although we didn't have passes to any pre-game events, the stadium has a nice bar/restaurant area. We got into this place, Shout, before they started charging a cover. Shout was an interesting place. They had dueling pianos with bar-type singers at each. The all-request show involving tipping the pianoman to play your song. Suprisingly great fun. Each teams fans requesting local favorites, while the other team tipped the players to stop playing. I must say, the Pats fans were surprisingly cocky! It was unsettling. Omen #4 - when did New England sports fans become so fate-tempting. They requested songs like, "We are the Champions." Let me be clear, I fully expected the Pats to win, but I would never tempt karma by singing along to "We are the Champions" 2 hours BEFORE THE GAME!
On that note, I see a guy headed into the stadium with a red, white a blue face paint of 19-0. Oh the shame.
The seats were great. The game was painful. The Giants were throwing everything they had at the Patriots and ... it was working. Brady had no time as the offensive line (particularly Matt Light) was getting buried. When I go to games, I don't always watch the ball. I try and watch things that you typically don't see on TV. Countless times, I watched Moss move a step past his defender, only hear the crowd make a roar - Brady sacked, hit, or forced to dump it off.
Halftime was an uncomfortable 7-3 lead. Ross and I had gone through match-ups all weekend long, and were convinced that the Patriots would dominate. 7-3 was unthinkable. However, there was solice in mid-game adjustments to come. The only problem was they didn't.
When the Patriots took the lead on a real drive capped off by a Randy Moss touchdown pass with 2:40 left - it was over. I knew the Patriots would win. The only problem was they didn't.
The Manning spin out of a sack was sureal, and the Burress TD pass was a dagger. The place erupted on that play, and I flopped back into my seat wanting to throw up. Like Bill Belichick, I too was out before the final tick ran off the clock. Stunned.
Frankly, the loss would have been easier if they were 16-3. The sole fact that this game meant so much, made the season feel worthless. I felt robbed. The Giants played well - very well - but what a time to pick to play your worst game of the year.
Ross caught the redeye home (I had meetings in CA on Monday and Tuesday), and Chris and Jonathan invited me to the Giants team post game party. Although it was very kind of them to invite me, I was in no mood to party. I went to bed - feeling empty.
I have yet to see the TV version of the game, and will likely have comments after that.
For now, its just - ugh.
In the end, I pulled down some pretty good tickets to Super Bowl XLII. Club section for FACE value. Now that is a score. I must go out of my way to thank Chris, my brother-in-law, and Jonathan, his cousin, got tickets from ... the New York Giants. Oh, the irony. The package included a hotel room, and we were "guests of the Giants." Omen #1
The weekend started well. My buddy Ross and I were able to grab a direct flight to Phoenix on Friday morning. Once there, we took a trip out to the Giants team hotel to get credentials for transportation and such (we were politely denied because such credentials were for players and family only). However, we mulled about the team hotel and grabbed dinner at a nice restaurant there.
The place was empty, except one table next to us. That table was Cris Carter - the HBO Sports commentator and former NFL wide receiver who was nominated for the Hall of Fame, and due to hear the results the next day - and his entourage. They were relaxed and reminicing about great plays of Cris' career. As they got up to leave, I contemplated dropped a "good luck," but chose to just leave him alone. He didn't get in.
From there, we hit Scottsdale and soaked in the atmoshere. One club employee tells us that the Giants were all in there earlier in the week, but no one had seen the Patriots. That makes me feel good.
Saturday morning, we played Whisper Rock Golf Club. Whisper is a reclusive, private course that maybe sees 25 or 30 players a day. There were 270 golfers there for a shotgun start Saturday morning. I ran into Jerome Bettis, the former Steeler running back, and Kordell Stewart, the former Steeler QB, in the pro shop. Kordell is semi-famous/notorious for his postgame quote after the Patriots beat the Steelers a few years ago in the AFC Championship game, that "sometimes the better team doesn't win." Omen #2.
Preparing for the shotgun start, a rumor among the caddies is that Peyton and Eli are both there. Again, I feel good, but come to my senses and realize there is no way Eli is there on Saturday morning. He isn't. However, who stolls up to the golf cart in front of us - Peyton Manning. Joy that Peyton is playing golf on Super Bowl weekend - priceless. Omen? You tell me?
Golf was great. I never actually saw the final scorecard, but I played with mixed results. A couple of pars, a legitimate putt for birdie, plus a few triple bogies.
We had invites to the Marquis Jet/Jimmy Johnson party on Saturday. Originally, we thought it was Saturday night, but it turns out it was from 1-6. Grr. Golf ended around 3. We hustled over there for the last hour and a half. We heard Jimmy Johnson speak, but missed the speech given by, none other than, Bill Belichick. We heard from numerous attendees that Belichick was pleasant and ineresting. He toook questions and gave REAL answers. Hmmm. Belichick who has been strangely gitty all week, was pleasant ?!? That should have been Omen #3.
Saturday was capped off by a nice dinner with our friend Aaron who had hosted us for golf earlier in the day.
Game day started off well. Transportation to the satdium was a looming issue; however, we grabbed an open cab around 11am, and made our way. Although we didn't have passes to any pre-game events, the stadium has a nice bar/restaurant area. We got into this place, Shout, before they started charging a cover. Shout was an interesting place. They had dueling pianos with bar-type singers at each. The all-request show involving tipping the pianoman to play your song. Suprisingly great fun. Each teams fans requesting local favorites, while the other team tipped the players to stop playing. I must say, the Pats fans were surprisingly cocky! It was unsettling. Omen #4 - when did New England sports fans become so fate-tempting. They requested songs like, "We are the Champions." Let me be clear, I fully expected the Pats to win, but I would never tempt karma by singing along to "We are the Champions" 2 hours BEFORE THE GAME!
On that note, I see a guy headed into the stadium with a red, white a blue face paint of 19-0. Oh the shame.
The seats were great. The game was painful. The Giants were throwing everything they had at the Patriots and ... it was working. Brady had no time as the offensive line (particularly Matt Light) was getting buried. When I go to games, I don't always watch the ball. I try and watch things that you typically don't see on TV. Countless times, I watched Moss move a step past his defender, only hear the crowd make a roar - Brady sacked, hit, or forced to dump it off.
Halftime was an uncomfortable 7-3 lead. Ross and I had gone through match-ups all weekend long, and were convinced that the Patriots would dominate. 7-3 was unthinkable. However, there was solice in mid-game adjustments to come. The only problem was they didn't.
When the Patriots took the lead on a real drive capped off by a Randy Moss touchdown pass with 2:40 left - it was over. I knew the Patriots would win. The only problem was they didn't.
The Manning spin out of a sack was sureal, and the Burress TD pass was a dagger. The place erupted on that play, and I flopped back into my seat wanting to throw up. Like Bill Belichick, I too was out before the final tick ran off the clock. Stunned.
Frankly, the loss would have been easier if they were 16-3. The sole fact that this game meant so much, made the season feel worthless. I felt robbed. The Giants played well - very well - but what a time to pick to play your worst game of the year.
Ross caught the redeye home (I had meetings in CA on Monday and Tuesday), and Chris and Jonathan invited me to the Giants team post game party. Although it was very kind of them to invite me, I was in no mood to party. I went to bed - feeling empty.
I have yet to see the TV version of the game, and will likely have comments after that.
For now, its just - ugh.
Monday, January 28, 2008
The surprising Super Bowl preview look back ...
I don't have as much time on my hands as this article would suggest. Nevertheless:
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/2008/01/28/ramblings/6070/
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/2008/01/28/ramblings/6070/
Frustration
The experiences of the 2003 and 2004 Super Bowls were awesome. Getting tickets were not easy, but not ridiculous. With the Patriots in the AFC Championship last year against the Colts, my friend and I had tickets lined up for Miami, but the Patriots fell down in the second half, and we did not go.
I normally don't think about things like going to the Super Bowl until the outcomes are definite. I'm too superstitious. However, this year, the Super Bowl seemed like such a sure thing. I've been thinking about going to Arizone since about week 9!
As the Giants got closer and closer, I started to get concerned. If the Giants beat Green Bay everything would become more complicated. I broke tradition and suggested getting tickets early - before the Patriots or teh Giants played. I was reasonably talked out of it. With 20/20 hindsight, that was a mistake.
The Giants fans with discretionary income and a rabid following have flooeded the ticket market with demand. Ticket supply - even from normally reliable sources - is dry.
I really don't want to watch at home. This is frustrating.
I normally don't think about things like going to the Super Bowl until the outcomes are definite. I'm too superstitious. However, this year, the Super Bowl seemed like such a sure thing. I've been thinking about going to Arizone since about week 9!
As the Giants got closer and closer, I started to get concerned. If the Giants beat Green Bay everything would become more complicated. I broke tradition and suggested getting tickets early - before the Patriots or teh Giants played. I was reasonably talked out of it. With 20/20 hindsight, that was a mistake.
The Giants fans with discretionary income and a rabid following have flooeded the ticket market with demand. Ticket supply - even from normally reliable sources - is dry.
I really don't want to watch at home. This is frustrating.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Playing Catch Up
Phew, it's about time I posted. Happy New Year to all. Since its been a month since the last post, this will be a bit of a hodge-podge catch up.
Christmas was great. Emily was in hyper-excitement mode. This was probably her best Christmas yet. She was so excited about Santa she could barely contain herself. I'm surprised that she even slept a wink on Christmas eve. Katie was pretty excited too, but kept it somewhat under wraps.
Santa was good to them. The big gift was Nintendo DS handheld game machines. I didn't know much about them, but lots of their friends have them, and they really love it. Mom & Dad treated them pretty well too with Hannah Montana concert tickets. [side note: no, I did not spend the $2000 some people were getting for tickets, although a quick trip to eBay could have paid for Christmas - and then some. I scored some last minute tickets in a box in Newark through a work contact.] Alison's family came over in the afternoon, and it was overall a very nice day.
Next up was the above-mentioned concert. For anyone without girls aged 5-15, Hannah Montana is a character on the Disney Channel played by Miley Cyrus. She's the hottest thing going right now, and her whole tour sold out in minutes. Nose-bleed seats were going for $300-400 per ticket! The kids were extremely excited. We drove to Newark's brand new Prudential Center (which is very nice, BTW) for a 4pm show. Being in a box was good. At the Pru Center, the boxes are at mid-level, not way up, so you are part of the show, but have your own space. Most importantly, we were not surrounded by screaming fans. That said, I'll admit that Miley Cyrus' music is not too bad. She has talent, and her songs are not "sticky" despite being Disney generated. The kids crowd in the box was subdued, which kept our kids from dancing or singing, but I'm not sure they would have anyway. Nevertheless, it was clear that they enjoyed themselves.
Best of all we got back home before kickoff of the Giants/Patriots game! 16-0, what more is there to say. The next day, I trekked back to Newark with the kids, another dad, and his two kids to watch the Jets/Chiefs finale. Hmmm, what can I say about the game? Both teams have good punters? The kids had fun going to a game - but we only made it through less than two quarters. It was a great atmosphere. The kids got to learn new phrases like, "Kellen is an asshole!" and "What a shit call!" Almost every third word out of the mouth of the guy behind us was "F*ck." That's the Meadowlands for ya. Katie asked a fairly perceptive question, "why do they tease the players?" My response, "That's just the way it is here."
New Year's Eve was decent. We - and two other families - got a room at a local restaurant at the last minute. It was nice. We were all home by 10, and Alison was asleep by 11:30.
Finally, the kids are skiing again. We took a day up towards the Harriman State Park. Once Katie regained the hang of it, she was able to cruise on the green trails. However, she needs to work on turning. Occasionally, she would just shoot down which is dangerous to her as well as others. For a daredevil, Emily was surprisingly cautious and sometimes scared. She took two lessons, and rarely skied without being held. However, she gets the concepts, and it will come. Considering I just bought some new skiis, I'm counting on them being skiiers since Alison isn't one.
Christmas was great. Emily was in hyper-excitement mode. This was probably her best Christmas yet. She was so excited about Santa she could barely contain herself. I'm surprised that she even slept a wink on Christmas eve. Katie was pretty excited too, but kept it somewhat under wraps.
Santa was good to them. The big gift was Nintendo DS handheld game machines. I didn't know much about them, but lots of their friends have them, and they really love it. Mom & Dad treated them pretty well too with Hannah Montana concert tickets. [side note: no, I did not spend the $2000 some people were getting for tickets, although a quick trip to eBay could have paid for Christmas - and then some. I scored some last minute tickets in a box in Newark through a work contact.] Alison's family came over in the afternoon, and it was overall a very nice day.
Next up was the above-mentioned concert. For anyone without girls aged 5-15, Hannah Montana is a character on the Disney Channel played by Miley Cyrus. She's the hottest thing going right now, and her whole tour sold out in minutes. Nose-bleed seats were going for $300-400 per ticket! The kids were extremely excited. We drove to Newark's brand new Prudential Center (which is very nice, BTW) for a 4pm show. Being in a box was good. At the Pru Center, the boxes are at mid-level, not way up, so you are part of the show, but have your own space. Most importantly, we were not surrounded by screaming fans. That said, I'll admit that Miley Cyrus' music is not too bad. She has talent, and her songs are not "sticky" despite being Disney generated. The kids crowd in the box was subdued, which kept our kids from dancing or singing, but I'm not sure they would have anyway. Nevertheless, it was clear that they enjoyed themselves.
Best of all we got back home before kickoff of the Giants/Patriots game! 16-0, what more is there to say. The next day, I trekked back to Newark with the kids, another dad, and his two kids to watch the Jets/Chiefs finale. Hmmm, what can I say about the game? Both teams have good punters? The kids had fun going to a game - but we only made it through less than two quarters. It was a great atmosphere. The kids got to learn new phrases like, "Kellen is an asshole!" and "What a shit call!" Almost every third word out of the mouth of the guy behind us was "F*ck." That's the Meadowlands for ya. Katie asked a fairly perceptive question, "why do they tease the players?" My response, "That's just the way it is here."
New Year's Eve was decent. We - and two other families - got a room at a local restaurant at the last minute. It was nice. We were all home by 10, and Alison was asleep by 11:30.
Finally, the kids are skiing again. We took a day up towards the Harriman State Park. Once Katie regained the hang of it, she was able to cruise on the green trails. However, she needs to work on turning. Occasionally, she would just shoot down which is dangerous to her as well as others. For a daredevil, Emily was surprisingly cautious and sometimes scared. She took two lessons, and rarely skied without being held. However, she gets the concepts, and it will come. Considering I just bought some new skiis, I'm counting on them being skiiers since Alison isn't one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)