At any rate, while Netflix’s original business model is well on its way to obsolescence for digital media like movies, it may yet have potential for “old economy” industries.  The New York Times had an article about two young Harvard MBA graduates who started a “Netflix type” web business that rents designer dresses: “Haute Couture, Available Through the Netflix Model.”

This is an interesting idea.  It has long been possible to rent high-end women’s dresses for events (and men’s tuxedos too, of course).  But there has never been an online mail-order site for it.  The Times writes,

Rent the Runway is a recession-era twist on the Internet rent-by-mail model, which has been used for things like textbooks and video games in addition to movies. Unlike those utilitarian items, however, the dresses offer a touch of Cinderella — on a budget….

Rent the Runway is betting that its shop-by-Web convenience and the appeal of its top-quality fashions will persuade women across the country to rent a dress for a special occasion without trying it on beforehand.

It will be interesting to see if this business prospers.  It’s difficult to buy (or rent) clothes without trying them on.  This is hard enough for a standard pair of jeans, let alone tailored clothing.  Fashion is also a notoriously fickle industry.

At any rate, we’re not so much interested in this particular business as in the larger trend it could represent.  Recessions are a time of vicious creative destruction in which old business models are destroyed and new ones created.  It would be ironic if Netflix’s core business failed yet inspired copycats that revolutionized other industries.

Charles Sizemore, CFA
Co-author of the recently-published Boom or Bust: Understanding and Profiting from a Changing Consumer Economy

Their book, which is a sequel to their surprise bestseller Freakonomics, is a great series of case studies on unintended consequences and, on a higher level, understanding consumer behavior.   It’s surprisingly one of the funniest books I’ve read in years.  I found the book so entertaining, I pretty well put my life on hold this past weekend to finish reading it.  (My rapid reading of the book was, in itself, a beneficial unintended consequence of my recent buying of my Amazon Kindle.  The convenience of owning a Kindle has enabled me to read much faster and cover a lot more material.  Don’t underestimate the benefit of having a portable library in your briefcase.)

Some of the book’s chapters are better not mentioned in this blog (a large section of the book is dedicated to analyzing the economics of prostitution, calculating the marginal costs and benefits added by pimps, among other topics).

Below are some of the tamer subjects covered (more…)

The Federal Reserve Flow of Funds report shows a contraction of consumer credit of $122 billion so far for the year, or a reduction of 4.75%. Consumer credit outstanding has been contracting for eight consecutive months, which is a record.  People truly are paying down debts.

At the same time, the availability of credit is contracting.  The NYT reported this morning that the major credit card companies have shed 72 million card accounts in the last 12 months, dropping the total number of cards outstanding to 555 million, an 11.5% reduction.  However, at the same time those companies have cut available credit lines from $4.6 billion to $3.4 billion, or a 26% decline. 

Bankers continue to tighten lending standards.  the latest Fed survey shows that 15% of senior loan officers are reporting that they are tightening standards.  While this is down from the meteoric 85% earlier this year, it still shows continued tightening of credit. 

As the noose closes, it will have an impact.  We will choke off even more of the economic activity.  Keep in mind, this does not in any way mean that economic activity will stop.  We are not saying and have never said that things go to zero.  It’s just a period marked by “less” as we go through an extended bout of private debt deflation.

Bloomberg writes,

While financial institutions including Citigroup Inc. and Bank of America Corp. have received more than $200 billion in capital from the government, they are limiting loans at a time of mounting unemployment, rising company bankruptcies and increasing regulatory oversight. Commercial and industrial lending has dropped 17 percent since October 2008, according to Federal Reserve data.

Economic growth will be slower and short-term interest rates will stay lower for longer than economists and investors expect because of banks’ reluctance to lend, says Jan Hatzius, chief U.S. economist at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. in New York. Bank profits may be restrained and bond prices boosted as institutions put money into safe Treasury securities rather than making riskier, more lucrative loans.

Bank executives are not fools (the lax mortgage lending standards of the mid 2000s notwithstanding).  When they look at the economic environment — even after recent improvements — they do not like what they see.  Rather than lend money in a risky, uncertain, and politically-charged environment, many would rather keep their funds in US Treasuries.

This is why, despite the record expansion of the monetary base, we had yet to see convincing signs of inflation.  When risk appetites wane, credit creation stops, and the velocity of money slows.  And that is where we continue to find ourselves today.

Charles Sizemore, CFA
Co-author of the recently-published Boom or Bust: Understanding and Profiting from a Changing Consumer Economy

The question begs to be asked: Why?

The New York Times writes “Retailing executives and analysts offer varying, occasionally wacky, explanations. The one favored by many of them is that consumers consider shoes more of a necessity than, say, dresses, cuff links or handbags, so people feel less guilt about buying them.”

Shoes are generally cheaper than most of the other items mentioned. Perhaps this is a better explanation, however:

Shoe buyers for major retailing chains said sales were also driven by styles for children and babies, especially during the back-to-school months. Children regularly grow out of shoes and parents, while willing to sacrifice when it comes to themselves, are typically loath to scrimp on their children.

When a child’s foot grows, you really have no choice but to buy shoes for him.  In this sense, children’s clothes can be thought of as a recession resistant sub-industry, particularly given the recent surge in births.  This recent baby boomlet gives the market for children’s clothes strong demographic support in the next decade.   Even if an adult man or woman is content to turnover their wardrobe a little less frequently when times are hard, some amount of spending is needed for their growing kids.  They might buy cheaper brands and buy fewer pieces overall, but some amount of spending is going to happen.  You can’t rightfully send your kid to school with sleeves and pants legs that are half a foot too short.

The Times also had another interesting theory to explain the resiliency of shoe sales:

Among the more curious explanations proffered for the relative strength of shoe sales is that women — who make up the lion’s share of the American shoe market — get an emotional lift from shoe shopping in a way they do not when trying on jeans and cocktail dresses.

During depressions, people are…well…depressed.  The “retail therapy” of shoe buying might create a sense of escapism from current economic woes.

At any rate,  this goes to show that in a bad economy, pockets of strength can be found in some unexpected places.

Charles Sizemore, CFA
Co-author of the recently-published Boom or Bust: Understanding and Profiting from a Changing Consumer Economy

What the entities are doing is betting on an improvement in the housing market, waiting to sell inventory when things are better.  These are the same entities that told us in no uncertain terms in the summer of ‘08 that they needed no government funds, and are now $100 billion into our pockets as taxpayers, most likely needing more in the months ahead.  Having these entities become real estate speculators doesn’t make me feel better.

I did see a couple of people taking solace in the fact that the number of job losses is slowing, indicating that on the current slope we will be in positive territory by late spring of 2010.  I understand that.  I don’t agree with it, but I understand it.  The measure of the civilian labor force, or the number of people eligible for work, has continued to slide, which makes the measure of unemployment look better than it actually is.  We’ll see.

There is no good way to spin a move higher that goes over 10%. 

The greatest benefit of a liquid market is it role in allowing “price discovery.”  The interactions of buyers and sellers send the signal of what an object is worth via the clearing price.  But the key here is “liquid.”  When sales are infrequent, prices become stale and no longer reflect reality.

In the housing market, this can be seen in a couple different ways.  If demand is in freefall and it’s been a while since there was a sale, the “market” price will grossly overstate the “real” price.  But likewise, if demand is relatively strong but the last sale was an aberration (such as a low-ball foreclosure sale), the market price can understate the real price.   In either event, it can make the sale of a house complex and downright tricky to negotiate for both buyer and seller.

The NY Times ran a good story this morning about this topic: “Getting Real About Home Prices”

The Times writes,

Even in the best of times, it’s hard for individuals to objectively value their homes, which often reflect their sense of self and personal style. Making things even more difficult has been general market inactivity lately, if not paralysis, which has provided little in the way of pricing guidance. But by using online resources, investigating neighborhood trends, consulting real estate experts and perhaps even asking the opinions of brutally honest friends, homeowners can arrive at a reasonably accurate appraisal even in these uncertain times.

Of course, as the Times tells us, in the end “the value of a home is the price the buyer is willing to pay.” And in most areas, it is still very much a “buyers market” in the sense that sellers have very little negotiating power.  This is not something we see changing any time soon.

Charles Sizemore, CFA
Co-author of the recently-published Boom or Bust: Understanding and Profiting from a Changing Consumer Economy

In an almost unfathomable vote of confidence in Japan’s credit worthiness given the county’s debt load and horrendous demographic picture, bond investors have priced the ten-year Japanese treasury at a yield of only 1.4%.  Investors are willing to accept a paltry return of less than a percent and a half from a borrower with the state finances of a banana republic — with government debt now closing in on 200% of GDP!

This prompts the question:  WHY?

The standard answer has been that,

1. Since Japan in experiencing deflation the real interest rate is higher, making the bonds more attractive, and
2. Japan’s domestic population, with its high savings rate, has a voracious appetite for “safe” fixed income, essentially willing to buy at any price.

Of course, for a lot of Japanese, the yield is not sufficient, and a fair number invest their savings in foreign stocks, bonds, and currencies.  They will almost certainly be happy that they did, as we view the likelihood of a full-blow currency crisis in the yen being very high within the next decade.

At any rate, international investors may not be as sanguine on Japan’s credit risk.   Consider the chart below, from Bloomberg (more…)