#378: glamour closet.

after he poppeth'd the question, i figured i'd try on dresses. for fun. alone.

so i did.

i used to walk by glamour closet everyday on my way to work and knew it was a sample sale store (read: not a high end couture boutique). so i dropped in unannounced (which is the way they like it. walk-ins only!) and tried on 6 or 7 dresses. was it fun? yes. did i think i'd buy a dress there? no. they carry name brand designer dresses and though they're a fraction of the retail cost, i considered the price too high-brow for me.

but that was before i went ahead and bought my dress at an amy kuschel sample sale. for what i paid for my dress, i could have seriously considered purchasing a dress from GC.

and with their 'extra 20% off all dresses' sale about to start, that little thing called 'buyer's remorse' is creeping up on me.

if you're in SF, check them out. nothing to lose and the staff is uberly kind and helpful (they even allow you to take pictures of the dresses! gasp!).

i'll consider this my PSA for the day. cools?



WEDDING GOWN SAMPLE SALE - Up to 80% OFF RETAIL

Take an additional 20% OFF ALL Gowns In Store! Includes labels such as Vera Wang, Monique Lhuillier, Amsale, Reem Acra & MORE!

Designer Labels Include:
Vera Wang
Monique Lhuillier
Reem Acra
Anne Barge
Amsale
Elizabeth Fillmore
Ulla Maija
Angel Sanchez
Badgley Mischka
Kenneth Pool
Justina McCaffrey
and MANY MORE!

Sale Details: Take an additional 20% OFF lowest marked price on ALL GOWNS in store. Includes recent new arrivals. Represents total savings of up to 80% OFF original retail prices!

DATE: Sale Begins Friday, Sept 26 and continues through Saturday, Oct 4
LOCATION: 114 Columbus Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94133
HOURS OF OPERATION: Saturdays, 11 a.m. to 6 p.m.
Tuesday-Friday, 11 a.m. to 7 p.m.

HURRY IN! Great deals on these one-of-a-kind designer dresses! Wedding gown sale ends Saturday, October 4.

We look forward to seeing you at our store!

***********************************************************

enjoy. and if you end up buying your dress there, please share with us as i like happy endings. of this nature, that is.

#377: relevant? quite.

via oh joy!.

#376: a real conversation.

*scene: at night.*

me: (brushing my teeth) DUDE. i've been using your toothbrush for the past 4 days and finally realized it this morning. so i'm back to using my toothbrush. but isn't that so gross?! we've been using the same toothbrush for 4 days! so sick. blech, barf, gag...

him: (pointing to the toothbrush in my hand/mouth) THAT is my toothbrush.

me: oh.

...

me: um...well...then WhereTF is my MIND???

*******************************************************

sorta losing it. time to eat more blueberries.

A Defense of the Paulson Plan

The Treasury proposal to rescue the financial system has gotten a lot of grief lately, especially from the community of economics professors. A smart friend, who knows more about this topic than I do, emails me his response to the critics:

Academic economists don't like the Treasury plan, but nearly all of the Wall Street economists are for it. You don't have to be all that cynical to say that the Wall Street economists are talking their book. But I'd like to think that there is at least in part a sense in which they are more attuned to the reality of the situation in credit markets -- that last week we were a day or two away from a breakdown of the financial system.

Here are three common critiques from the academics and journalists and what they are missing:

1. "Treasury must overpay for this to work because otherwise you are not injecting new capital, only adding liquidity."

Treasury is talking with the experts you would expect -- prominent academics who have designed auctions. It's complex because there are so many different MBS, but Treasury is committed to get the market price as best as it can. It will not intentionally overpay. But the assertion that the plan will not boost capital is wrong. If Treasury gets the asset prices exactly right next week when the reverse auction starts, those prices will be higher than the prices that would have obtained before the program was announced. That difference means that by paying the correct price next week we will be injecting capital relative to the situation ex-ante. Treasury does not need to overpay. And the taxpayer can still see gains -- say if the announcement and enactment removes some uncertainty about the economy and asset performance, but not all. Then prices could rise further over time. But the main point is that it is not necessary to overpay to add capital. I think Krugman is a leading purveyor of the "they must be intending to overpay" assertion.

2. "Taxpayers will be better off if Treasury gets warrants."

This is essentially the assertion made in David Leonhart's column in the NY Times on Wednesday. And it again illustrates that we would all be better off if high schools taught the Modigliani-Miller theorem. MM implies that the price of the asset (again,assuming the auction gets it right) will adjust to offset the value of any warrants Treasury receives. In this case of a reverse auction, imagine that the price is set at $10. If Treasury instead demands a warrant for future gains of some sort, then the price will rise in the expected amount of the warrant -- say that's $2. Then the price Treasury pays for the asset will be $12. Some people might prefer to get $12 in cash and give up a warrant worth $2 in expected value. Fine, that's a choice to be made. But the assertion that somehow warrants are needed is simply wrong.

3."The plan should be to inject capital instead."

This is the Luigi Zingales criticism. Again, that's a fine plan and might be a good idea. But that's a complement to an asset purchase plan, not a substitute -- and it's one allowed by the Treasury proposal and indeed envisaged in some cases. But that will take much longer to implement than an asset purchase. That's why it's a complement not a substitute -- Treasury needs to act now. The particular ideas from Zingales et al that there should be a forcible capital injection are pure ivory tower, unfettered by the practicalities of legality, enactment, or implementation.

The Theory behind the Rescue Plan

Here is the key passage from President Bush's speech last night:

as markets have lost confidence in mortgage-backed securities, their prices have dropped sharply. Yet the value of many of these assets will likely be higher than their current price, because the vast majority of Americans will ultimately pay off their mortgages. The government is the one institution with the patience and resources to buy these assets at their current low prices and hold them until markets return to normal. And when that happens, money will flow back to the Treasury as these assets are sold. And we expect that much, if not all, of the tax dollars we invest will be paid back.

In other words, the premise appears to be that the market is irrationally pessimistic. That might be so. Nonetheless, one has to be at least a bit skeptical about the idea that government policymakers gambling with other people's money are better at judging the value of complex financial instruments than are private investors gambling with their own.

#375: polaroid-ness.

when people take something ordinary and use their creativity to make it amazing, i swoon.

i don't know about you but i could totally see either of these working (in the most wonderful way) as unique and fun invitations.


via black*eiffel.

and from a cup of jo:

via smitten.

P(bank bailout) = .79

Says Intrade.

Thurday morning update: P = .90