As IF Times

link American Idol producers want Howard Stern to replace Simon Cowell as judge – NYPOST.com.

It’ll never happen.  Unless of course, Fox wishes to completely torpedo the succesful franchise.  American Idol was originally created as a program showcasing the emotional journey and talent of aspiring singers.  From very early on in the series, the drama surrounding the judges commanded as much buzz as the weekly display of talent itself.  Simon Cowell legitimately became the anchor for the show with his acerbic but honest critiques.  Randy and Paula played supporting roles but nonetheless, the show is now missing something with the departure of Ms. Abdul, despite her questionable judging abilities.   It became popular sport to watch her every week just to see what kind of train wreck she would display in her rambling commentaries.

The departure of Simon will be fatal to the show and especially if Mr. Stern is brought on board to replace Simon.  Firstly, Stern is a boor.  Secondly and most damning, he is not entertaining.  His brand of entertainment is so crass and without any redemptive value that the show’s ratings would crater like an NBC drama series. Besides, it’s supposed to be a talent contest.  The only thing Howard knows is the general difference between C, D and double D.   Idol has always been mainstream.  Howard Stern is the antithesis of mainstream. No doubt he must have a fan and audience base since Sirius radio was dumb enough to pay him $100 million a year as the anchor for their business model.   A model which has bled money from day one and is barely viable now.

Hard to deny that crassness and sophomoric “humor” sells though.  A number of entertainers have as their trademark shtick, the obnoxious, juvenile, over the top goofiness that is reminiscent of a spoiled teenager.  If in fact, they were teenagers, you could at least remark condescendingly, ” how sweet”.   The fact that many of these entertainers are well into middle age and still try to pass off  rudeness as precociousness is tiring at best, pathetic at worst.  Guys like Letterman, Stern and some others are reaching way past their demograhic when trying to be edgy for the 20 to 30 set.  Conan may be able to throw out the sexual double entendres, but when the Sterns and Lettermans do it, it’s just creepy and lecherous. 

If someone’s willing to pay Howard Stern $100 million bucks because he’s “entertaining”, that tells you that there’s a bear market in talent.  Couldn’t they just outsource a younger obnoxious host from say, India? Or China?  The networks would save a lot of money and the funny accents alone would be an audience draw.  They can bring Stern’s crassness to the judging as in:

“Begging your pardon, but you have no talent, please to show us your bosoms.”

It’s safe to say that in the entertainment racket, audience is everything and with the imminent departure of Simon Cowell, Fox is looking to get someone with some sizzle to maintain ratings.  Howard doesn’t seem to be the right guy to nail the 13 to 25 female demographic…in a manner of speaking.   Besides, it looks like some publicity ploy to get more money from Sirius. If Stern is considered, why not Bill Clinton, or Hugh Hefner? They would bring as much buzz to the show and both have better haircuts.  On second thought, none of the above are suitable.  No males would ever win.

link Londons Latest Property Bubble – WSJ.com.

Interesting article by Brett Arends.   Interesting because of the eerie similarities to real estate in Vancouver over in this part of the world.  In classic economic theory, there is the concept of economic utility.  With regard to housing, it made sense for people to pay a mortgage if that was cheaper or more beneficial than renting a property of the same type.  Conversely, as long as rents were cheaper than paying a mortgage, it made more sense to rent than  buy.  The other important consideration is the ability of people to sustain mortgage payments for their levels of income.

While not an expert on London real estate and by no means an expert on Vancouver real estate, the main fundamentals that would support and maintain real estate prices in both cities appear questionable.  While the author of the article correctly points out that London has reaped the benefit of monies flowing from other murkier and more dangerous parts of the world, so has Vancouver.  It may not be relevant to consider only the income of the locals as a gauge of affordability.

Vancouver’s external demand comes from a number of high profile communities, most notably Asian residents and investors.  Compared to the bustling Asian cities of Hong Kong and Shanghai, the value received for what one pays in Vancouver is still a bargain.  Another constituency, not talked about and a poorly kept secret, is the bustling drug and narcotics trade in Vancouver.  Investment in real estate is a superb way to shelter ill gotten loot.  As an aside, only in Vancouver will you find, in the middle of any working day, multitudes of young, able bodied people just sitting around at cafes seemingly doing nothing.  Hmm.

Those in the real estate business express the same arguments about why prices are as buoyant as they are and why they are destined to go much higher.  They cite low interest rates, immigration from other parts of the country and of course the old chestnut, they ain’t making any more of it.  From my vantage point as a long time participant in capital markets, the only reason prices go higher is short supply and strong demand.  I won’t quibble about where those dynamics are, but an observation if I may.  One of the main reasons that people have been buying real estate is for fear of missing the next upmove in prices.  In other words, shelter is not the primary reason people are buying homes here.  The real reason is the fear of being left behind when prices move.   In Vancouver at least,  the word is WHEN not if.  

Young people and families are brainwashed with the idea that they must enter the housing market with whatever stretched resources are available to them rather than renting to save up a legitimate down payment.  Again, they are buying because they are chasing prices much like participants in the stock market.  Higher prices reinforces the idea that direction can only go one way and recent history has supported that notion.  

 We now have the phenomenom of 600 sq ft condos, billed as starter homes, selling at over $500,000 in the downtown core.  As if starters live in 600 sq ft. of space  paying a half million dollar mortgage.  As the author in the article points out, the overall cost of living also increases in the city as the cost of everything from cab fares to restaurants escalate in lockstep with the rising pool of ‘wealth’.   At some point, and I certainly don’t know when, the divergence of income and outgo stretch too far and demand falls away.  This can occur naturally, in which case, prices ebb and flow.  The scarier scenario is when an event triggers the closing of the income/outgo gap, perhaps a sudden uptick in the cost of borrowing.  Perhaps an economic road bump in Asia.  Perhaps a bad pot harvest.