Senin, 20 Juni 2011

There are days when it is hard to be a liberal

This afternoon I heard a woman say with a straight face that Santa Monica is committed to affordable housing.  This was after she bragged about the low density, high design standard, affordable housing that Santa Monica built.  What was the construction cost for the project?  More than $600,000 per unit--because each unit uses a lot of land, which is expensive in Santa Monica, and because of those "high design standards."

The median price of a house in Los Angeles County is about $300,000.    When a subsidized housing unit costs $600,000, the average person is implicitly paying a lucky family to live in a nicer than average house.  This is of course inefficient--it also undermines the consensus necessary to make sure everyone is housed adequately.

We do indeed have a huge problem in Southern California--many families do not have sufficient income to afford a reasonable unit in a location close to a job.  Building gold plated housing in Santa Monica does not help solve the problem.


Minggu, 19 Juni 2011

Places that voted for Obama have longer-lived women

The Washington post featured a story about life expectancy for women and men by county. The data come from the University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, and in particular a paper by Sandeep C Kulkarni, Alison Levin-Rector, Majid Ezzati and Christopher JL Murray.


The Post story contained a fun interactive map, and I could not help but notice that "blue" places appeared to have longer lived people. I couldn't help myself, so I downloaded data on elections from Mark Newman's website at the University of Michigan. Specifically, I downloaded data on the 2008 presidential vote by county.

I then drew a scatterplot in Stata of Obama's share of the Obama-McCain vote against women's life expectancy:


Again, the unit of observation is county.  The size of the dots reflects total votes by county.  The vote weighted correlation between women's life expectancy and share of Obama vote is .262, which is not insubstantial for a bivariate correlation.

One cannot draw any causal inference from any of this, of course, and my guess is that the Obama vote share is proxying for something else--perhaps educational attainment.   But drawing these pictures is fun (BTW, the correlation for Obama vote and men's life expectancy is a smaller .168).

In preparing a talk on the history of US Housing Policy, I found this...



Notice that it is serious and fairly lengthly, and was done by local TV news.

Two Newspaper articles prompt the question "when is enough, enough"

The Washington Post has a nice piece (that relies on a study by Jon Bakija, Adam Cole and Bradley T. Heim) about how executive compensation has been the principal driver behind the increasingly unequal income distribution in the United States.  It uses Dean Foods as a nice case study---the current CEO (who apparently runs the company well) makes ten times the income of the CEO from the 1970s (who also ran the company well).  One reason for the difference is that Kenneth Douglas, the 70s era CEO, turned down pay-raises, arguing that it if he made more than is $1 million per year, it would be bad for morale.

Immediately after reading this article, I read another in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel about the search to replace Biddy Martin as chancellor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.  In that article, Jan Greenwood, a presidential search consultant is quoted:


UW-Madison "is a phenomenal university" with world-class status, said Jan Greenwood, a presidential search consultant.
But, "Wisconsin, at this point in its history, is one of the states that is having severe challenges because of compensation issues," she added.

Martin made $437,000 per year plus benefits plus a fully staffed large house.  One can live very well in Madison for $437,000 plus a house.  That is enough to take nice vacations, eat out wherever one wishes, and drive a nice car.  It is probably even enough for owning a boat or small plane if such things really mattered to someone.

Maybe my problem is that I am a homer--I got my Ph.D. in economics at Madison and then was on the business school faculty there for twelve years.  The place does have some serious issues, but is also quite extraordinary.  Getting to run it while being paid enough to enjoy lots of consumption seems like a pretty good deal to me.

Jumat, 17 Juni 2011

As I watch people drive...

..I can't help but think about a problem with the Euler Equations for consumption.  Young people (especially young men) do dumb things on the road that can get themselves killed in much larger numbers than old people.   This is not just anecdotal, because insurance statistics back this up.  (Also, as one who drives in LA, my N for making this inference is pretty large).

But of course as we approach our cap T, we should be taking on more and more risks, because the expected losses get smaller and smaller.

Sure, the u(c(t),t) function can change with t, but then it also becomes sort of useless.



What's Next for RIM?

Several people have asked for my thoughts on RIM's financial troubles.  A computing platform runs on momentum.  When the platform's growing, there's a virtuous circle between the growth of the customer base, the introduction of new products, and the arrival of new developers.  Each one reinforces the others, and it produces strong, resilient growth.  Look at Apple's current expansion for a great example.

But if that momentum breaks, the same forces that help you grow can create a self-reinforcing decline.  The loss of customers reduces your resources, so you can't spend as much on new products, so developers are less excited, so you lose more customers, and so on.  I lived through those cycles at both Apple and Palm, and they are very difficult to reverse once they gather momentum.

Based on RIM's latest financial report, it looks to me like the company may have fallen into a declining pattern in North America.  Sales in the rest of the world seem to be doing better, which is masking the severity of the problem in the US.  It's hard to say any of this for sure, because RIM doesn't release all that much detail.  But here's what I think I am seeing in the numbers:

--As the chart below shows, sales were down compared to last quarter, only the second sequential revenue drop since fiscal 2006. 


Revenue per quarter (RIM fiscal quarters)

RIM pointed out that sales were up year over year.  They were, but...


--The year over year revenue increase was driven by a 67% increase in sales outside North America.  If you look only at North America, sales were down about 18% year over year.  (RIM didn't announce that number, but you can back it out from the reported increase in international sales compared to total sales). 

In other words, RIM is growing strongly outside North America, but declining sharply in North America.

The most disturbing thing about the revenue decline is that it came in the quarter when RIM shipped the PlayBook.  That should have increased revenue.  The fact that North American revenue dropped anyway means the decline in North American BlackBerry smartphone sales was even worse than it seems.  Edit: I did a back-of-the-envelope estimate of the revenue from PlayBook, and BlackBerry smartphone sales in North America must be down by well over 20% year over year. 


--Device gross margins are down to 28%, a drop of three points from the quarter before.  I suspect this is another sign of the mix shift away from North America -- RIM's sales in the rest of the world tend to be lower-cost units sold to young people, and those devices would have lower margins.  It may also mean that RIM has been cutting prices in an unsuccessful effort to prop up sales in North America.


Company and hardware gross margins (RIM fiscal quarters)

As you can see from the chart, RIM's overall corporate margins (the blue line) did not drop as much as its hardware margins.  That's because the company had a big increase in services revenue.  Perhaps the service revenue from those international customers is better than the device revenue.  Unfortunately, RIM doesn't release enough data to let me dig into that.


--Average sales revenue per device dropped $20, to $279.  That is an all-time low.  This may be due to the shift to international sales.  It may also be due to price-cutting in North America.  I am astounded that average revenue per unit sold dropped in the quarter when the (relatively expensive) PlayBook shipped.


Average revenue per device sold (RIM fiscal quarters)


--The shoe that hasn't dropped yet is channel inventory.  RIM told us it had shipped 500,000 PlayBooks, but it didn't say how many of them have sold through to customers.  It's easy to have one good quarter when you load the channel, but what matters is the sales in the next two quarters.

We also do not know how many BlackBerry units are sitting around in the channel.  But one thing is certain, every time RIM's executives talk about how great their upcoming products will be, it gets a little bit harder to sell through those existing devices.

Netting it out, the sales pattern in North America looks disturbing.  Pricing actions in North America don't appear to be increasing sales, and the PlayBook has not rescued the company.  The silver lining for RIM is that its international sales are growing.  But North America is half of RIM's revenue, so it has to be fixed if the company is to go back to rapid growth.


What happens next?

To restore momentum in a faltering platform, you need a hit product.  Can RIM generate one?  The company says it will accelerate the introduction of new products, which sounds sensible in the abstract, but if it's possible to develop products faster, why didn't RIM do it before?  And considering RIM's history of shipping buggy devices, I tremble at what its products might look like if they were developed even faster.

RIM says it is going to do layoffs, which is probably necessary given the drop in revenue.  But I wonder where the cuts will come from, and how big they will be.  Do you lower staffing in North America, so you can focus more on the fast-growing international markets?  If so, you may blow your chances of ever recovering the North American half of your business.  Do you cut R&D?  If so, I don't know how you get products to market faster.  Do you focus on being a youth messaging phone?  If so, how do you prevent Apple's new iMessage service from eating your lunch?  Or do you try to do an across-the-board haircut of a certain percent of employees in every department?  I went through some of those at Apple.  They are easy for management to implement, but their net impact is fewer people trying to do the same work, and doing it poorly.

Meanwhile, there will be a morale problem at RIM.  Ideally, you should announce layoffs on the same day you conduct them, so employees don't waste time worrying about whether they will keep their jobs.  Instead RIM pre-announced the layoffs, which probably mollified investors but which will distract every person in the company for the next quarter while they prep their resumes.  I have lived through that sort of uncertainty, and it is a productivity-killer.

The other hit to morale is going to be RIM's announcement that it will buy back up to 5% of its shares.  At current market value, that is about $900 million in cash that could have gone into R&D or marketing or price cuts but will instead be used to prop up the stock price.  If you're a RIM employee, the combination of layoffs plus stock buyback seems to say that management thinks the stock price is more important than the work you're doing.

What is the plan?  You can't cut your way to broad growth; you have to cut and then focus on some key initiatives.  Apple is a good example to keep in mind.  It was in far, far worse shape than RIM, and came back very successfully.  RIM can too.  But Apple slaughtered huge numbers of projects and teams so it could focus on brand advertising, the iMac, and eventually the iPod.  

So I'm waiting for RIM to tell me what its master plan is for restoring growth.  So far all management has said is that the layoffs will be a "streamlining exercise" rather than a reorganization (link).  That may imply an unwillingness to make hard choices, or it may just mean they are not yet willing to discuss their plans.  Either way, before we can evaluate RIM's prospects, I think we need to know more about what it's going to kill (if anything), and which initiatives it will focus on obsessively.

Kamis, 16 Juni 2011

Program note

I will be on Bloomberg tomorrow talking about foreclosures.  I look forward to the day when no one wants to talk to me about foreclosures.