leyton.org

Robert Peston is a man who rarely seems off the airwaves at the moment, from his Northern Rock news last year, through to his coverage of the financial meltdown we’re seeing today.

Whilst I can’t fault the substance of what he says, and it seems he’s got some substantial contacts, I’ve a few gripes with Mr Pestons presentation style (in particular his elocution), and his seeming self importance, matched solely by seeming self-belief. Most particularly his choice of language can be clumsy, and possibly even self-fulfilling. Watching his body language when being interviewed on television, particularly in the studio when he has to try and sit still for a little while whilst the presenter sets context, is always interesting.

But this exchange on Radio 4’s Today, this morning (at about 7:30 this morning) was delightful, and an example of something I’d suggest are real ‘Pestonisms’:

Evan Davis: Morning Robert, what do we know now [about the Treasury Statement]?

Robert Peston: Well, what we know Evan is that absolutely, well it confirms really, what I’ve been saying for 24 hours. Absolutely colossal sums going into RBS and HBOS. RBS raising £20b from taxpayers. HBOS £11.5b from taxpayers….

‘Pestonisms’ have been mentioned before, but I’d suggest that a true ‘Pestonism’ isn’t purely his spoken style, but also something that captures the raw essence that is Robert Peston.

Other examples gratefully received.

Returning home from a rain soaked running training session this evening, I caught the end of an interview on Radio 4’s Front Row with sculptor Richard Serra. Towards the end of the interview (28 minute offset) he made a fascinating aside about graffiti, specifically tagging, after being asked about a mark that the interviewer had seen on a recent installation:

If you notice, kids never tag advertisements because advertisements, they think, are something they aspire to, even though advertisements are probably what represses them and makes them conform more than anything else. Yet they’ll tag something they think has no useful function. And the interesting thing about art is that it’s purposely useless. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t have a use in terms of evoking feelings and sensations that nothing else can do, but it means it’s not useful in the utilitarian way that a doorknob is.

Thinking about it, I can’t think of any graffiti or tagging I’ve ever seen on adverts. But maybe other factors are at play - that adverts are replaced frequently, that they’re slightly out of the way, or maybe that I’m not paying attention. 

But I can’t shake the feeling that it hits a truth about the process. It struck me as a fascinating observation, and presents an interesting insight into the mindset of the perpetrators.

In my previous financially focused post (link) I expressed frustration at how the media continue to misrepresent the perfectly legitimate practice of ’short selling’. As I was watching the news yesterday (with their on-screen live FTSE and DOW figures), and reading the newspapers again this morning, I was reminded that there are further examples of oversights and simplifications in financial reporting, that all go to make me concerned there are few places to go for solid news (Radio 4, Newsnight and Channel 4 news, largely).

One example is, perhaps, well known. It’s the reporting of the FTSE 100 index figure as some generic financial indicator. Remember, this is just a selected index of a basket of equities (ie. stocks), and it is adjusted over time. Whilst it constitutes about 80% of the total value of the FTSE shares, it is still an equity indicator, and a general purpose one at that. It’s of interest as many people invest in FTSE-100 trackers. Personally I prefer a FTSE-All Share tracker.

In the context of the ‘credit crunch’, equities are not really a particularly good indicator. Whilst it’s clear that share values fluctuates, it doesn’t in itself show very much about the underlying problem that faces financial institutions. Let’s not forget too that in times of doubt there is always a flight of money from equities to fixed income products and commodities (particularly gold). When people sell their equity investments in large numbers, share prices naturally drop (a surfeit of sellers), and it’s likely to see ’safer’ investment values rise (due to limited availability; commodities need digging/drilling!). Just compare the graph for last months gold price, particularly it’s big spike in September 2008, and last months stock market indicator graphs.

Oil prices are an interesting case - they were a solid investment earlier this year - it was doing nothing but rise - but with the doubt and fear about a global recession, oil prices drop over fears about reduced demand. A good thing too, clearly, as the knock-on effect on heating bills has serious consequences for societies most vulnerable members. But let’s forget the halcyon days of less than $25 barrel oil - many of the oil-rich Gulf states are funding huge investments on the basis of (relatively) high (>$75) oil prices. I for one was not in the least bit surprised by the news in early September that OPEC were cutting production. Let us not also remember oil is priced in US$, so as the US$-Sterling rate falls, so oil price rises for us. But it’s not really been mentioned in the media that oil prices are safely below $100 at the moment: It’s been ignored due to other financial events.

So share price drops are inevitable in days of doubt. Investors seek safer shores. In today’s Guardian it’s reported that is also happening with people’s savings, as they move from perceived ‘at risk’ banks to National Savings products and other government backed savings accounts. You’d almost think that the financial professionals are people too! On a side note, the term ‘Masters of the Universe’ used a lot at the moment (in reference to financial high-flyers) comes from The Bonfire of the Vanities, rather than the children’s cartoon series.

Equities are a good indicator of confidence, and the massive dives in recent weeks indicate the failing confidence. The problem was exacerbated, in my mind at least, by an inept US President. By making the announcement that something of that scale was planned so far in advance, expectations were set. Financial institutions felt the cavalry was coming. So when Congress refused to pass the bill in it’s proposed form, expectations were shattered, and confidence plunged.

The other key word is volatility. Prices are moving about as much as they are as investors take differing views on insufficient, inaccurate, incorrect information. Throw in a healthy dose of fear, and you’ve everything you need. One figure that seems to be missing from public resources is traded volume. Prices are naturally volatile when volumes are lower (fewer people competing to sell/buy assets), and I’m curious to find out how traded volume compares in September, with that of previous months or years. Although I suspect the confidence figures remain the dominant factor here.

But as far as measuring the ‘credit crunch’, it’s LIBOR (London Interbank Offer Rate) that’s king. These are the rates at which banks lend to each other over various periods of time. The credit crunch is all about this lending drying up, represented by spikes in the rate, which is normally closer to the Bank of England interest rate. Just yesterday the overnight rate hit 6.87%, compared to the 5% for the Bank of England. This rate is finally getting reported more often by the serious media, but it’s still difficult to find on market data websites.

As we all know the Credit Crunch is about banks not lending to each other, at least without a prohibitive premium. For the ‘real economy’ that means borrowing of any sort are going to be more difficult. As such borrowed money - vital in the short-term - dries up, we can expect to see in the coming months businesses struggling to find money to help them grow, invest or simply get through a difficult patch. When cash runs out, for whatever reason, businesses fail, and jobs start to go. If the complete grid-lock in the finance sector isn’t eased soon, the bad news from successful businesses will start to grow in numbers. Sadly it’s a delayed consequence, which doesn’t sit well with the 24 hours news cycle that seems to demand cause-and-effect to be observable.

So if you want a figure that indicates how the credit crunch is affecting lending, LIBOR is the one to look to. If you want an indicator of confidence and fear, the FTSE figures. Whilst confidence remains so low, and the US government struggles to find the rescue package it needs, I’d expect prices to remain volatile, and many valuable commodities, will rise.

But it’s not all bad news. If, like me, you’re some years away from retirement, take the pragmatic view that lower prices can make for a good buying opportunity. A complete economic meltdown is unlikely as fundamentals are, I think, still quite sound and the crises is still solvable if fingers are extracted and US politicians get a grip and stop playing, er, politics. But look to the other figures for a better indication of what’s going on. It’s certainly not all about what the FTSE or DOW is doing day to day.

There seems to be some bizarre hysteria blowing through the country at the moment: The fear of shorting stocks, and the companies that practice it. The newspapers seem to be all over the mechanism, and journalists seem to be failing in their duty to provide accurate information. Also in the firing line seem to be pension companies, who loan their stock and thereby allows this to happen in the first place, companies that do it, and even various characters who naively stepped in to condemn traders without first checking their own portfolios. 

Unfortunately it seems that a huge amount of misunderstanding is going about, and I fear it may be a similar as with science reporting (See badscience.net, from Saturday Guardian column of the same name). The media is full of journalists (many of whom will necessarily be english/media/journalism graduates) with very little understanding of technical subjects. They are asked to write pieces on subjects they may not have much knowledge or interest in, and then proceed to clamber about the subject with painful naiveté. Unfortunately, their naiveté goes on to misinform huge numbers of people, and hysteria results. 

I’ll give an example of one of most horrifically tenuous pieces of journalism I’ve read in a long while. The Sunday Herald tries to throw some mud at Alec Salmond who made headlines with his “Spivs and Speculators” comment. The Herald has this to say in a piece (link) trying desperately to throw some mud at the SNP:

One of the companies that “short-sells” shares, Morgan Stanley, last year received a £6 million grant from the SNP Government to boost jobs in Glasgow. It has also emerged that the Scottish Government is funding another business, Timberpost, which creates artificial intelligence for short-selling firms.

What can we conclude? Er, Alec Salmond’s government gave grants to companies who employ people and operate on the stock market, or develop software, in a perfectly legal way. I really struggle to understand how that is a problem, or implicates the SNP in anything. It does, however, speak volumes about a journalist who’s trying to eek out a story and latch on to a misplaced fear (largely of their own creation) of a perfectly legal practice.

Can we also (Sunday Herald journalists please pay attention) try and remember that the current ban on short selling applies only to bank stocks and not the practice as a whole. It is NOT inherently bad practice. Quite the contrary, it’s a valuable tool in markets that enables downwards pressure on stocks that may be overvalued for some reason. Look at the hype that surrounds IPO’s and companies that hit the headlines. What if you, as somebody taking a position on the market, disagrees and think there are fundamental problems? Shorting a stock is one of the fundamental ways to do this.

Also, let us not forget that the banks that have been torn to pieces had (it’s now clear) fundamentally poor business models when cheap credit dried up. High risk loans without sufficient deposits, or self-certified mortgages, or even (dare I say it) falling asset values. But house prices never fall, do they? Whilst there is clearly a wider crises exacerbating many of the problems, it’s clear there was and is a shake-out required. 

Pension companies (largely) invest for the long term. Certainly if I’m investing in a fund, I’m indirectly holding an asset (shares) for a period of time. Now that can either sit in the fund, and grow in value and no more. Or the pension company can lend it out and earn money from it, which in turn can be reinvested. It may even add to the yield that helps pay out income funds. There is no risk to the pension company, as the value is associated with the asset itself, and the loaner must return the stock. They’re just oiling the wheels, and making money for their investors in the process. If the value of the asset falls as a result of the shorting, so what? That’s the position the investors took, largely with a longer term view than a 5 year stock market chart in mind. Personally, I’m losing no sleep over the drop in value of my ISA’s, pensions and so forth. I’m taking a 30 year view. I’ll also phase money into bonds as time passes. Because putting all your eggs in one basket (the stock market) is a Bad Thing. 

Now I’m certainly no financial expert. I may have worked in finance for a good few years, and enjoy reading the financial pages of newspapers. There may have been dubious practices going on with some of the short selling. That’s not for me to judge. But what is for me to judge is some of the atrocious reporting going on associated with regards financial issues, not least the inappropriate demonisation of short selling as a practice.

So if relatively simple concepts such as shorting are being mis-reported, stigmatised and pilloried, what hope have we that the really significant financial news dealing with almost $1 trillion of government intervention, is to be accurately portrayed?

Just watched the BBC News at 10. Absolutely baffled by Nick Robinson doing a hurried summation piece, to camera, as Gordon Brown left after delivering his conference speech.

I’ve a lot of respect for Nick Robinson, but he seems to be riding the crest of a new wave for journalists. It seems to be rapidly become de rigueur for journalists at the BBC. It’s almost as if you’re falling short if you don’t have the subject of your piece doing something (meeting/greeting/leaving) behind you as you frantically sum up something profound during their approach. No matter how burly the security guards, or enthusiastic the supporters, and particularly with disregard to how little time you have to do it; if you don’t do it this way the journalist in question may not really have been there.

Please. Stop doing it. All of you.

It doesn’t do any of you (or your reputations) any good, it doesn’t make you any more relevant, and it doesn’t make it any more hard hitting.

I, however (and, I suspect a large proportion of people watching you) are only going to laugh increasingly loudly at you as you do it. We might even point at you.

You should consider slapping the director who’s telling you to do this, and seriously consider a move to radio (like that nice Evan Davis). I suspect they won’t ask you to do much of that sort of thing there.

ps. Is it just me, or is Nick Robinson starting(!?) to sound. A little bit like. Jeremy Clarkson?

My good friend shardcore has a new project ‘retrogeek‘, and it’s well worth checking out if you ever did anything with the delights of the early 1980’s computers.

I settled down to watch Richard Dawkins’ new series “The Genius of Charles Darwin” last night with high hopes. Unfortunately, it fell somewhat short of my expectations.

The subject matter certainly demands coverage in this, the 150th anniversary of the publication of his ground breaking work ‘The Origin of Species’. What it didn’t need, in my view, was to be turned into another atheist argument. Channel 4 has done an admirable job over the last few years of representing various world views, it’s the only channel to devote any serious time to the specific subject of atheism. I’m also quite curious about the series “make me a Christian” which starts this Sunday, but - I should add - more for the comedic value I see in the prospect. That said, I fear I’ll get wound up by it in no time.

In my view, the subject of evolution by natural selection could have been dealt with - and been the better for it - if the subject of religion had been left on the side lines. Leave it as an exercise for the viewer to draw what (to me) are solid conclusions. But accept that there are many biologists and geologists who do find a way to allow evolution to sit side by side with their beliefs (Don’t expect me to explain the mental gymnastics that requires). I simply take Occam’s razor - the simplest explanation is most likely true - quite seriously, and evolution to me does a more than adequate job at explaining our place in the world. Gods only complicate it further, and actual demand far more difficult explanations.

Dawkins’ medium is definitely not television. His written works are elegantly written, and in them he deserves his position at Oxford as the Charles Simonyi chair for the public understanding of Science. But in television I feel he comes across as slightly arrogant, smug, distant and, I’m afraid, somewhat grating over the course of an hour. I’m a big fan, so goodness knows how anybody who wasn’t would feel after settling down for an hour of documentary.

Compare this to National treasure, David Attenborough. Attenborough has found a way of reaching out and pulling his audience in to the savanna and rain forest with him, so we all manage to enjoy the splendour and variety of the life about us with him. It’s clearly a tall order to expect Dawkins to become a similar treasure overnight(!), but if he could take on some of the approaches, and manage to find a way to better engage with the audience, it’d make for far more compelling, informative and educational television, especially when dealing with scientific subjects rather than his atheism.

In the core message of the programme it did better, when he wasn’t bringing religion in to it. Evolution is not a complex concept - indeed it’s rather obvious when you look at the selective breeding process we apply to our favourite animals - but it really seemed a bit more mixed up in the life of Darwin than would have been ideal. The budget may have been at play here: The choice of what seemed like aging natural world footage of animals fighting, eating, copulating and fleeing, and the strange metaphore of a piano to explain the relative duration monkeys (and humans) have existed to the entire span of life on earth. Some on-screen graphics really would have been better, and more emphasis on the simply vast stretches of time involved. Geology plays a key part in demonstrating evolution, but it didn’t seem to be applied or explained very effectively. Similarly it was very fleeting (but when it was mentioned, did so very effectively) how horrifically cruel yet wonderful the natural world is. Parasites, eat or be eaten, how the eye has independently evolved multiple times, and how there are some bizarre relics of evolution within our own body.

All said, I’d give the programme 6/10 - Could do (much) better. It fell short of really engaging effectively with a fascinating subject, and Dawkins made atheism a far more a central part of the programme than was necessary. Dawkins perhaps needs to realise that if he had been less up-front about atheism, and focusing on the core concepts he was supposed to be putting across, it might actually have convinced more people to what seems to now be Dawkins’ main role as lead atheist. As it was, a programme that should have been about a stunning piece of science, it became more of a programme about atheism, and as such was much the poorer for it. And I say this as both a Dawkins fan, and an atheist myself.

My friend shardcore offered to paint a picture for Frances and my recent wedding. Frances wasn’t so keen on the prospect, but I rather fancied seeing what would happen, so jumped at the chance at getting the shardcore treatment (How often do you get such an offer?). So without further ado here’s Richard and Marvin (2008). I’ll leave the explanation of what’s what with the picture to shardcore: he’s done a far better job than I could manage. But I’m honoured to be featured on what he describes as perhaps “the geekiest painting ever”.

The fun didn’t stop there though! After the post was submitted to boingboing.net, it then got picked up by no less than gizmodo, and the comments on both have been (mostly) enjoyable, and nice and geeky too. My server ‘dexter’ (which hosts both leyton.org and shardcore’s website) has managed to survive the ensuing load reasonably well too. It’s also getting it’s first public viewing at Brighton’s £5 app get together. I’d be there myself if I didn’t live at the other end of the country.

Anyway, hope you like the painting. I think he’s done a great job - Be sure to check out his other pieces too.

Update: The original was taken by Chameleon at a Scottish Bloggers get-together a while back.

I’m a huge fan of Pixar, and all that they’ve achieved. I recall watched their early films (including the famous lamp and ball, and the tin soldier) when I was a student, and the magnificent progress that has been made in the short amount of time since then is magnificent. Toy Story, Monsters Inc. and Finding Nemo have become firm favourites. Genuine classics.

I’d not been following what film to expect next, so I was in for a treat when I found the Wall-E trailer site. Absolutely wonderful, and immediately looks like it’ll appeal to a huge cross-section of people in the seemingly effortless Pixar way. I showed the trailer to Frances, and it certainly struck a chord with her.

via Gordon I’ve just read a lovely story about one girls encounter with the trailer, and it really adds to the Pixar story.

Wall-E is out on the 18th July in the UK. It’s stormed the box office in the US, as it’s received great reviews and hit a chord, so I’m quite pleased we don’t have a huge wait before it arrives here. I’ve not been to the cinema in ages, but I’m pretty certain we’ll be making sure we see Wall-E

Well, there’s nothing quite like a media storm to draw attention to the fact that your own MP has a weblog. It seems he’s been accused of calling us all miserable (link to BBC news).

You can read the article here on his weblog - I plan to do so later on. He also has a slick, but rather generic looking Labour-MP website

As a weblogger myself(!), and a constituent with no party affiliations (but plenty of opinions, as Mr Harris himself will have recently discovered after I wrote to him about 42 days detention), I plan to keep a bit more of an eye on his weblog in future. It’s certainly to be commended (especially as he’s a minister), and I certainly hope the current media storm doesn’t put him off maintaining it. If only more politicians would do so (Glasgow councillors in particular), we’d all perhaps know a tiny bit more about what our representatives think.