Tag Archives: finance
(1980’s | academese (economics) | “cautious”)
This expression carries a couple of odd dichotomies considering how straightforward it appears. The most obvious pertains to that which it modifies; either persons or corporate bodies — whatever the Supreme Court says, they’re not the same — may be risk-averse, though presumably the risk-aversion of a corporation is ultimately traceable to individuals, whether executives or independent shareholders. More interesting is the fact that risk-averseness may proceed from two entirely different kinds of experience. A conservative corporate board avoids sudden shifts and grand initiatives because they feel prosperous; there’s no incentive to rock the boat. Yet it is a tenet of pop psychology that those who have lived through times of deprivation are suspicious of all but the safest investments, and, in extreme cases, may refuse even to keep their money in banks. (Both sides have in common assets to protect; if you have nothing to lose, there’s no point in being risk-averse.) But then there’s an absent dichotomy that one might naively expect to find in an expression beloved of bankers: the distinction between sensible risk likely to pay off and a crazy scheme. The risk-averse will stay away from both, desiring only the steadiest and safest.
The expression comes out of the discipline of economics and was most used originally in finance, starting in the sixties and becoming commonplace by the eighties. Soon it came to be used often of politicians and lawyers. Among corporations, insurance companies attract it the most; their risk-aversity comes from a visceral understanding of actuarial tables. Yet any stodgy company merits the term. Slowly but surely over time, it has spread into other kinds of prose, with movie reviewers and even the odd sportswriter resorting to it nowadays. More kinds of writers use it to describe more kinds of people — it’s not just for stockholders any more. The point of the compound seems to be neutrality; it strives to avoid any imputation of prudence or cowardice, and largely does, as far as I can tell.
In a previous post I remarked on the curse of capitalism — if one guy works harder, everyone has to work harder — and risk-aversitude bears the seeds of a different manifestation of it. In competitive markets, each company watches the innovations of others like a hawk. When they succeed, the other competitors follow; when they fail, everyone else drops plans to do something similar. Television works this way, though maybe less so now, when there are so many networks (an obsolete word, I know). Any change — introducing a new character into a popular series, or a new show about a controversial subject — carries with it a chance that your audience will flee in terror. But if it pays off, your competitors take note and resolve to do the same damn thing, backed up by shareholders who noticed that it made big profits for the other guy. Within a season or two, everyone is sick of the no-longer new gambit, and most of the imitators have made no headway. Whereupon they lose advertisers, another risk-averse group famously shy of causing offense, taking the money and running at the first sign of any immoral or objectionable acts that might result in lost market share. (Bill O’Reilly is only the latest in a very long line of such embarrassments.) Sometimes, what looks safe turns out to be dangerous. Risk avoidance, like any other strategy, is subject to misuse born of misunderstanding or bad timing, whether by the humblest investor or the loftiest board of directors.
(1980’s | bureaucratese? legalese? financese? | “recoup,” “recover”)
No longer the sole property of sportswriters, this noun-verb complex has invaded the financial pages and legal journals in force. When I was young, you clawed your way back into a contest through determination and effort, not quitting until the game was on the line and you had a chance to win. It didn’t have to be a single game; it could happen over course of a season, as in a baseball team clawing its way back into the pennant race. It might be used in the context of an individual sport like tennis or golf, but I think it more often went with team sports. In the business world, you might claw your way to the top, but you don’t claw back your way to the top — though you might claw your way back to the top. There’s something ruthless about clawing when people do it; it requires unreasoning vigor, like a jungle cat, blindly fighting its way forward as long as it can move.
In the late seventies, the U.S. began imposing treble (i.e., threefold) damages on defendants who lost certain kinds of civil suits. The U.K. responded by passing a law of their own that gave a British person or corporation the right to recover the portion of the total damages that was not actually compensatory (in other words, the part that was multiplied on after actual damages were awarded). In both the British and American press, this was widely referred to as a “clawback provision.” The expression was much more common in the British, Canadian, and Australian press for at least a decade thereafter, and it is indubitably a Briticism.
My impression was that the expression refers mainly to something governments do, as in the Bernie Madoff case, but a corporation can do it, too; take Wells Fargo’s repossession of stock from disgraced executives in the wake of a banking scandal. I suppose that a business partner could claw back money that another partner had misused, but for the most part it seems to be something an institution does. Clawbacks normally occur when assets have been stolen or used illegitimately; when you hear the word, you can be pretty sure that there was some funny business that has been found out, and a governing body, private or public, is doing something about it. (That isn’t always true; for example, when the British government was privatizing public industries in the eighties, they decreed that a certain number of shares had to be available to British investors. In some cases, that meant “clawing back” shares bought by foreigners to make sure enough shares were available.) The government generally needs some kind of judicial ruling, but a corporation needs no more than the approval of the directors.
In truth, the new expression here is “clawback” (n.) since “claw back” (v.) has been a permissible construction for a long time. (As we saw above, “clawback” also serves as an adjective. I hope I am cold in my grave before “clawbackly” becomes standard English.) But its present sense seems to have arisen around the same time, and I wouldn’t want to state with certainty that one preceded the other, though I would guess the verb came first. It has never left legal and political contexts, or spread outward from them. Law and justice must have their own language.
(1980’s | businese | “sure thing,” “fait accompli”)
“Done deal” always makes me think of the mob expression “made man.” The alliterative spondee lends both expressions the necessary sense of finality and irrevocability. I don’t know of any connection between “done deal” and organized crime; the earliest uses of the term I was able to find come out of the financial industry, soon absorbed into political discourse. As you might expect given its business origins, “deal” clearly refers to transactions, not cards, although I can imagine a casino employee responding to a poker player’s complaints with “Shut up — it’s a done deal.” Newsweek noted in 1985 that the phrase was a favorite of Treasury Secretary James Baker, and such early patronage by politicians favored its fortunes; there’s no doubt “done deal” is as useful in politics as in banking (or the Mafia, for that matter). Even today, the phrase turns up most often in financial and political news — not that they’re different. “Done deal” has now come to be used more often, if not predominantly, in the negative, to caution us that there’s no guarantee the contract will be completed as advertised (e.g., “this is not a done deal”).
“Done deal” originally referred to business maneuvers, but as politicians picked it up it came to mean any sort of dead certainty (a little like “slam dunk,” but used in different situations). A way of saying “we’re not going back” or “you can count on it.” A done deal need not actually be done, but the point is that even if the papers aren’t signed, they will be soon. It does seem to me that “done deal” is often used to refer to a transaction or agreement that is not yet formal or final; once the deal is truly executed, it is no longer necessary to call it “done.”
“Done deal” represents a form of grammatical displacement not uncommon among new expressions. The concept is an old one, so how did we express it in the old days? “Settled,” or more poetically “chiseled in stone.” In a simpler key, “all over.” These are all adjective phrases that cannot serve as subject or object. Commonplace ideas look for new parts of speech to inhabit, and nouns may slip into power where once ruled only adjectives. To some extent I am speaking fancifully in attributing will to words, which are but bits of breath and ink, but if you spend enough time observing the language, it’s easy to slip into the belief that words have life and motive independent of us, their creators but not their controllers.
(1990’s | bureaucratese | “mania,” “speculation,” “fiscal irresponsibility”)
This expression took hold instantly. It sprang from the fertile mind of Federal Reserve chair Alan Greenspan on December 5, 1996 and soon became ubiquitous in financial discourse, as it remains to this day. Within a few years, it became possible to encounter it elsewhere, but such uses have never become common. I can’t think offhand of another example of a new phrase taking off so fast ex nihilo; it got 500 hits in December 1996 on LexisNexis after a grand total of zero before that; Google Books shows maybe one or two random instances before Greenspan. That is a reflection not of Greenspan’s popularity, but his majesty in financial circles, the ritual awe with which his every word or decision (one forgot for a while that the Fed was actually made up of several governors, not just one emperor) received from the rattiest day trader or the suavest mandarin. There have been other expressions that were born at a specific time and place (“trophy wife,” “tiger mother,” “factoid,” “deep doo-doo”), but has any of them shot out of the gate quite so precipitously?
The phrase recalls the old expression, “throwing good money after bad,” except that in some cases there isn’t any good money. “Irrational exuberance” involves excessive risk and excessive debt run up in pursuit of unreliable investments. When one person overdoes it, it doesn’t matter a whole lot to the larger market, but when everyone does, the consequences can create a wide swath of destruction and despair. In order to prevent such panics (as we used to call them), or collapses (as we call them now), the government must regulate banks and commodities markets. During eras when no one wants to do so, the boom and bust cycle starts again.
Greenspan’s exact words — “How do we know when irrational exuberance has unduly escalated asset values, which then become subject to unexpected and prolonged contractions as they have in Japan over the past decade?” — illustrate his practice of avoiding direct statements and forcing auditors to guess more or less confidently at his meaning; one thinks of wall posters in Beijing under Mao or of the Oracle of Delphi. All you can really get out of his question is a theoretical possibility that the market might overvalue enough stocks, say, to cause a bubble. Now that’s taking a stand! Is it too much to ask that the chair of the Federal Reserve seek to forestall asset bubbles or remind investors in no uncertain terms that it is possible to buy too much on the margin or pay too dearly for a chance to pick up a few extra millions? That would mean open dissent from the fanatical, and entirely unsubstantiated, faith that the market — a bunch of workaholic moneygrubbers driven by desire for personal gain — is somehow infallible if left alone. Well, we all know that’s bullshit, but that doesn’t seem to keep us from admiring, and even electing, those who proclaim it as gospel truth.
Investor psychology isn’t particularly complex; as long as some assets somewhere — Chinese stocks, African diamonds, Gulf of Mexico oil, U.S. junk bonds — do well, the money has somewhere to go, investors feel secure, and the numbers keep going up. Now that many of us have our retirement funds invested in mutual funds, rises in stock market value are widely cheered, but only a few of us will ever amass fortunes worthy of Croesus. Too few to buy sufficient consumer goods to keep the economy humming — that’s why maldistribution of wealth leads to stagnation and falling fortunes for most people. Too much money in too few hands, a sure breeding ground for irrational exuberance.
Thanks to lovely Liz from Queens and almost-as-lovely Lenny from Cherry Valley for this week’s contribution. Even when you think he is not listening, Lex Maniac hears all.
(2000’s | businese (finance) | “sell,” “make money off of,” “put a price tag on”)
This was a rarefied financial term as late as the nineties, used almost entirely in discussions of gold prices and government debt. Originally, it was even more literal; you monetized gold by making it into coins, thus converting it into legal tender. By the seventies, though, “monetize” basically meant “liquidate.” There’s the kind of money that you can go out and spend, and the kind of money that is otherwise occupied, like the value of your property, a stake in a business, etc. The former is referred to as liquid; more or less what economists used to call “M1” (for all I know they still do). The government is in a unique position when it comes to controlling the money supply, so it’s not much of a stretch to talk about government “monetizing” debt by selling bonds (for example). Or the government might monetize a portion of its gold reserves by selling it off. When gold prices shot up in the late seventies, a process that has continued to this day in fits and starts, banks and nations alike found an easy way to produce ready cash. That made “monetize” something of a dirty word to conservatives, who see disastrous inflation as the inevitable consequence of any expansion of the money supply.
Monetizing has long involved selling, and it still does. Sometimes the sale was indirect, and this notion has grown utterly commonplace, as the term has also come to mean something like “commodify” (convert into a commodity that can be sold — an extra step). Sometimes the sale is more indirect still, as an on-line business selling advertising on the basis of the number of page views it attracts. Only the most hardened cynic would regard this as a literal sale of the customers, but the practice definitely trades on their existence, and “monetize the customers” has a rather sinister sound. There is another meaning I should mention, although it has always been more marginal: assign a value to. You monetize something by figuring out what it is worth; whether you go on to sell it for that price is irrelevant.
For decades this word belonged to governments, corporations, and large financial institutions. It still does, but no longer exclusively. It has taken a popular turn, and nowadays a small business or an individual can indulge just as easily. An artist might monetize her work by selling it on-line, for example. The growth of “monetize” has coincided with the growth of the internet as a marketplace, and that is not a coincidence. Before 2000, anyway, the word had a technical sound that might convince the unwary that the speaker had arcane financial knowledge. For those who wanted to appear cutting-edge, or just edgy, it was an easy to word to adopt. By the time everyone figured out all you meant was “exploit for personal gain,” you’d be sitting pretty in the Caribbean somewhere.
When a term from a certain professional jargon (finance, in this case) slides into general use, it cannot help but broaden its meaning, applying to more areas or simply taking on new definitions. (Examples: ahead of the curve, curate, template.) In one way, the meaning of “monetize” hasn’t really changed, but it is an exotic word that gravitated naturally to an exotic means of commerce: the web used as a means of selling just about anything. “Monetize” represents yet another appropriation of specialized vocabulary by the masses, and in such cases one feels the loss. Our language cries out for terms that fill narrow niches and allow us to describe very particular states, categories, or objects; every word that becomes less precise detracts from our ability to understand what’s going on. As “monetize” has become sloppier, it has become more crass, at least to my ear. I wouldn’t say the word was ever noble, exactly, but it was reserved for relatively grand situations, not the property of any third-rate businessman trying to take advantage of a new market.
I must remember to thank my father, not just for raising me but for suggesting “monetize” many months ago. Sometimes these things take a while to germinate.
(1990’s | businese | “on the low side,” “sneaky,” “under-“)
The point about this word was that it implies deception; it goes with a word like “underhanded,” even though it is not a synonym. Space is opening up to use the word in a more neutral way, as in this recent pronouncement: “Official NOAA Climate Prediction Center estimates peg the odds of El Niño’s return at 50 percent, but many climate scientists think that is a lowball estimate.” No accusation of hanky-panky there. But the term does retain a strong association with deliberate deception on the one hand, and with financial transactions on the other. It can be a verb or even a noun (as in, “If she offers you a hundred dollars, don’t take it. That’s a lowball.”), yet it is most often encountered in an adjective mood, modifying things like offers, bids, budget projections, or sales prices. Sometimes it is designed to cheat, sometimes merely to lower expectations; either way, it partakes of deliberately misleading the audience. Even in a sentence like ” . . . the loss of physical bookstores, buckling under the weight of Amazon’s lowball prices” (International Business Times News, December 20, 2013), the feeling remains that Amazon’s prices are somehow illegitimate or unfair, even if they are not deceptive in the usual sense.
I’m not sure why “lowball” came to mean what it means. I learned it first as a baseball term, an adjective applied to pitchers and hitters alike. In that sense, it doesn’t imply deception; there are intentionally deceptive pitches, like the changeup or the spitball, but a low fastball doesn’t have to fool the batter in order to work. A “lowball glass” is a kind of liquor vessel, a short, round, wide glass used for a single spirit on the rocks or mixed with water. The drinks themselves are sometimes referred to as “lowballs.” And it’s a type of poker, a game in which the worst hand wins. That at least contains an element of misdirection that might qualify it as an ancestor, but there’s no obvious connection. I would guess that the old word “lowdown” (meaning “reprehensible”) had an influence, possibly a decisive one; sometimes “lowball” is used as a straight synonym for “lowdown,” or at least it was.
Lighter records the first use of “lowball” — as a verb — in 1957; it appeared in the New York Times on June 16: “‘low balling’: In effect this is quoting a low price initially and then reneging” or piling on extra costs after the contract is signed. The reporter attributed the then two-word verb to auto dealers. The first citation as an adjective dates from 1970, the latest part of speech to join the bandwagon. Lighter adduces a distinct definition: “operating at a low profit margin,” applied to organizations rather than activities. That sense appears to have disappeared since the seventies.
To some degree, “lowball” has lost its negative connotation, or at least it has become possible to use it without one. Of the expressions I’ve covered, not many have gone in that direction. “Factoid” is the only example I can think of, and it’s not a very good analogy. “Thanks for sharing” is no longer automatically sarcastic, but that’s another imprecise resemblance. Terms like “massage the numbers” and “game the system” have gone the other way, losing the possibility of a positive connotation over the last few decades.
race to the bottom
(1990’s | activese? bureaucratese? | “beggar thy neighbor,” “downward spiral,” “how low will you go?”)
According to LexisNexis, the expression originated in a very specific context: banking and financial regulation. The idea was that if banks were not regulated properly, they would engage in progressively riskier practices in pursuit of short-term profits, destroy some banks entirely, and weaken the entire system. That was the early eighties. Only a few years later along came the S&L scandals. Such swift and decisive confirmation of such a straightforward principle is unusual and worthy of note. “Race to the bottom” is commonly still used in political and bureaucratic contexts. President Clinton seems to have helped make it prominent, but it is not as closely associated with him as “shovel-ready” is with Obama, who in 2009 gave us “Race to the Top,” a federal education initiative. (You can tell a new expression has arrived is when it becomes fodder for adaptation and parody.) It was not just a phrase Clinton used regularly; it became a rallying cry for opponents of his trade agreements. Activists bewailed the tendency of nations to gut labor and environmental standards in order to attract short-term investment.
There does seem to be some truth to the proposition that we need governments to rein in our worst instincts where profit is concerned. Some bankers seem to revel in their failure to grasp the consequences of reckless speculation, or at least they convince themselves that they won’t suffer. Some other sap will get stuck with the bill (often as not, the sap is us). Even Bernie Madoff got caught eventually, and it would be nice to think that our financiers would have the brains to avoid hazardous gambles and sharp practice, if only in order to protect the gravy train. But there always seem to be a few.
Of course the use of the term spread, and by 2000 it was readily applied to other targets. Displays of sex, violence, and crassness in popular entertainment, especially television, were taken as evidence of a “race to the bottom” of standards of decency. A related target was tabloid-style journalism. And sometimes the phrase was used to talk about price wars and other familiar forms of economic competition. For the phrase always denotes competitive lowering of standards, each party intending to undercut the other(s). (It is generally understood to be deliberate — meaning that the perpetrator should be held responsible — and not merely an inevitable consequence of the widely acknowledged economic principle that greed causes people to do demonstrably stupid things.)
The race to the bottom is kind of like the slippery slope. They’re both foreboding phrases that describe what will happen, not what has already happened. Both bear relation to an older cliché, “the straw that broke the camel’s back,” because they envision a single event leading inevitably to a point of no return, followed swiftly by irrevocable and ruinous loss. Matters don’t always turn out as badly as advertised, of course. Yet over time decline is real, and its criers are bound to be right a goodly percentage of the time.