Investing Curiouscatblog

Category: Financial Literacy

  • Government Debt as Percentage of GDP 1990-2008 – USA, Japan, Germany…

    Recently Greece and the huge USA federal deficits have highlighted the problem of excessive government debt. The above chart shows gross government debt by country from the IMF.

    Korea has essentially no gross government debt (under 2% of GDP for the entire period). At the other end of the spectrum Japan has seen gross government debt rise to 197% (Japan’s 2008 figure is an IMF estimate). The IMF did not have data for Greece (which would likely look very bad) or China (which I would think would be very low – maybe even negative – the government having more assets than debt).

    The USA debt stood at 64% in 1990, 71% in 1995, 55% in 2000, 61% in 2005 and 70% in 2008. Most countries are expected to see significant increases in 2009. The IMF sees the USA going to 85% in 2009 and 100% in 2012. They see Germany at 79% in 2009 and 90% in 2012. They See the UK at 69% in 2009 and 94% in 2012. They see Japan at 237% in 2012.

    Government debt as percentage GDP 1990-2008The chart shows gross government debt as percentage GDP 1990-2008. By Curious Cat Investing and Economics Blog, Creative Commons Attribution.

    ___________________________

    The data here is very similar to the OECD data I provided earlier, Government Debt Compared to GDP 1990 to 2007, though with some notable differences. In the OECD data was still in the best shape, but is seen as having 29% debt to GDP in 2007. The IMF data attempts to avoid issues where some countries have debt of non-federal governments that are hidden when looking just at federal government debt.

    Data source: IMF data (for some countries the data is also from that site but at different urls).

    Related: The Long-Term USA Federal Budget Outlook – USA, China and Japan Lead Manufacturing Output in 2008 – Oil Consumption by Country in 2007 – Saving Spurts as Spending Slashed

  • “What the Financial Sector Did to Us”

    Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz explores the current financial system and the damage done to the economy due to that system. As he states in the video the credit crisis is not something that happened to the financial institutions. The credit crisis caused recession is something the financial sector did to us.

    He covers the topics he discusses in the video in his new book: Freefall

    Related: There is No Invisible Hand – Failure to Regulate Financial Markets Leads to Predictable Consequences – Market Inefficiencies and Efficient Market Theory – Congress Eases Bank Laws (1999) – Volcker on the Great Recession and Need for Reform

  • Where to Invest for Yield Today

    Yields are staying amazingly low today. Due to the credit crisis the federal reserve is shifting hundreds of billions of dollars from savers to bankers to allow banks to make up for losses they experienced (both in losses on bad loans and huge cash payments made to hundreds of executives over more than a decade). For that reason (and others) yields are extremely low now which is a great burden on those that saved and counted on reasonable investment yield.

    Don’t be fooled by apologist for those causing the credit crisis that try and excuse their behavior and act as those paying back the bailout payments means they paid back the favors they were given. They have received much more from the policies of the federal reserve that has taken hundreds of billions of dollars from savers and given it to bankers. It has the same effect as a direct tax on savers being paid to bankers.

    What is an investor/saver to do? James Jubak provides some excellent advice.

    How to maximize what your cash pays even when nothing is paying much of anything now

    A three month Treasury bill pays just 0.12%. A two-year note pays just 0.79%. Inflation may not be very high at an annual rate of 2.6% for headline inflation (and 1.6% minus volatile energy and food prices) but it’s enough to eat up all the interest from those investments and more. (TIPS, Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities will protect you from inflation but the yields are really low (1.43% for a 10-year TIPS at recent auction) and they only protect you from inflation and not rising interest rates. I-Bonds, a savings bond that pays an interest rate that combines a fixed component, currently 0.3%, with an inflation-adjusted variable rate, current 3.06%, offer a higher yield but since the variable rate is pegged to inflation and not interest rates, the yield on these bonds won’t necessarily go up if interest rates do. You also have to hold for at least 12 months. (After that and until you’ve held for 5 years you lose the last 3-months of interest when you sell.)

    You could lock your money up for decades and get 4.56% in a 30-year Treasury bond but 30 years is forever. And besides interest rates have to go up from today’s lows and that means bond prices will be coming down, probably fast enough to eat up all the interest that bond pays and more.
    …
    Not if you remember that interest rates are going up in most of the world (except maybe Europe and Japan) quite dramatically over the next 12 months. A year from now, perhaps sooner, you’ll be able to get yields swell north of anything you can find now.

    That pretty much means that you’re guaranteed to lose money two ways by locking it up for the long term now.
    …
    For the short term you need to put your cash into something that’s as safe as possible but that offers you as much income as possible—and that doesn’t lock up your money for very long.

    My choice dividend paying stocks—if they pay a high dividend, are extremely liquid, and are battle tested.

    Whether you agree with his suggestions in the article is up to you. But even if you don’t he provides a very good overview of the options and risks that you have to navigate now as an investor seeking investments that provide a decent yield. I agree with him that interest rates seem likely to rise, making bonds an investment I largely avoid now myself.

    Related: posts on financial literacy – Jubak Picks 10 Stocks for Income Investors – S&P 500 Dividend Yield Tops Bond Yield: First Time Since 1958 – Bond Yields Show Dramatic Increase in Investor Confidence

  • Buffett Calls on Bank CEOs and Boards to be Held Responsible

    In his most recent letter to shareholders Warren Buffett suggests that bank CEOs and board members be held accountable when the risks they take (and reward themselves obscenely for when they payoff) backfire:

    In my view a board of directors of a huge financial institution is derelict if it does not insist that its CEO bear full responsibility for risk control. If he’s incapable of handling that job, he should look for other employment. And if he fails at it – with the government thereupon required to step in with funds or guarantees –
    the financial consequences for him and his board should be severe.

    It has not been shareholders who have botched the operations of some of our country’s largest financial institutions. Yet they have borne the burden, with 90% or more of the value of their holdings wiped out in most cases of failure. Collectively, they have lost more than $500 billion in just the four largest financial fiascos of the
    last two years. To say these owners have been “bailed-out” is to make a mockery of the term.

    The CEOs and directors of the failed companies, however, have largely gone unscathed. Their fortunes may have been diminished by the disasters they oversaw, but they still live in grand style. It is the behavior of these CEOs and directors that needs to be changed: If their institutions and the country are harmed by their
    recklessness, they should pay a heavy price – one not reimbursable by the companies they’ve damaged nor by insurance. CEOs and, in many cases, directors have long benefitted from oversized financial carrots; some meaningful sticks now need to be part of their employment picture as well.

    The lack of accountability or ethics from those risking the economy so they can take huge payments (and paying off politicians to allow those risks) has hugely damaged the USA and the economic future of the country. The longer we allow such unethical leadership to continue to the more we will suffer. The current low interest paid to savers and the wealth thus transferred to the banks (who then pay themselves even more bonuses) are but one legacy of this economically devastating path.

    By the way, there is no way the bankers will actually be held accountable. The behavior of politicians we continually elect shows they will not do something that those giving them the huge amounts of cash don’t like. If we don’t like that we have to elect different people – maybe people that care about the country and have moral principles instead of those lacking such qualities, that we do elect.

    The politicians believe in holding those that don’t give them huge payments accountable for their actions. They just draw the line at holding people that they play golf with accountable.

    Related: CEOs Plundering Corporate Coffers – Credit Crisis the Result of Planned Looting of the World Economy – The Best Way to Rob a Bank is as An Executive at One – Fed Continues Wall Street Welfare – Political Favors for Rich Donors – Why Pay Taxes or be Honest

  • USA State Governments Have $1,000,000,000,000 in Unfunded Retirement Obligations

    There was a $1 trillion gap at the end of fiscal year 2008 between the $2.35 trillion states had set aside to pay for employees’ retirement benefits and the $3.35 trillion price tag of those promises, according to a new report released by the Pew Center on the States. The shortfall, which will have to be paid over the next 30 years by state and local governments, amounts to more than $8,800 for every household in the United States.

    The figures detailed in Pew’s report, The Trillion Dollar Gap, include pension, health care and other non-pension benefits promised to both current and future retirees in states’ and participating localities’ public sector retirement systems.

    Pew’s numbers likely underestimate the bill coming due because the most recent available data do not account for the second half of 2008, when states’ pension fund investments were particularly affected by the financial crisis. Additionally, most states’ accounting methods spread the investment declines over a period of time–meaning states will be dealing with their losses for several years.

    “While the economic crisis and drop in investments helped create it, the trillion dollar gap is primarily the result of states’ inability to save for the future and manage the costs of their public sector retirement benefits,” said Susan Urahn, managing director, Pew Center on the States. “The growing bill coming due to states could have significant consequences for taxpayers—higher taxes, less money for public services and lower state bond ratings. States need to start exploring reforms.”

    In fiscal year 2008, states’ pension plans had $2.8 trillion in long-term liabilities, with more than $2.3 trillion reserved to cover those costs. Overall, states’ pension systems were 84 percent funded—above the 80 percent funding level recommended by experts. Still, the unfunded portion–$452 billion–is substantial, and states’ performance is down slightly from an 85 percent combined funding level in fiscal year 2006. Pension liabilities have grown by $323 billion since 2006, outpacing asset growth by almost $87 billion.

    Retiree health care and other non-pension benefits, such as life insurance, create another huge bill coming due: a $587 billion total liability to pay for current and future benefits, with only $32 billion–or just over 5 percent of the cost–funded as of fiscal year 2008. Half of the states account for 95 percent of the liability. Because of a 2004 Governmental Accounting Standards Board rule, the full range of non-pension liabilities was officially reported in fiscal year 2008 for the first time across all 50 states.

    Many state and local governments continue to provide very large pay to state and local government employees and often use very generous retirement packages as a way of disguising the true cost of the pay packages they provide.

    Related: NY State Raises Pension Age to Save $48 Billion – True Level of USA Federal Deficit – Charge It to My Kids – USA Federal Debt Now $516,348 Per Household – Politicians Again Raising Taxes On Your Children – Consumer Debt Reduced below $2.5 Trillion
    (more…)

  • USA, China and Japan Lead Manufacturing Output in 2008

    Once again the USA was the leading country in manufacturing in 2008. And once again China grew their manufacturing output amazingly. In a change with recent trends Japan grew output significantly. Of course, the 2009 data is going to show the impact of a very severe worldwide recession.

    Chart showing percent of output by top manufacturing countries from 1990 to 2008Chart showing the percentage output of top manufacturing countries from 1990-2008 by Curious Cat Management Blog, Creative Commons Attribution.

    The first chart shows the USA’s share of the manufacturing output, of the countries that manufactured over $185 billion in 2008, at 28.1% in 1990, 27.7% in 1995, 32% in 2000, 28% in 2005, 28% in 2006, 26% in 2007 and 24% in 2008. China’s share has grown from 4% in 1990, 6% in 1995, 10% in 2000, 13% in 2005, 14% in 2006, 16% in 2007 to 18% in 2008. Japan’s share has fallen from 22% in 1990 to 14% in 2008. The USA has about 4.5% of the world population, China about 20%. See Curious Cat Investment blog post” Data on the Largest Manufacturing Countries in 2008.

    Even with just this data, it is obvious the belief in a decades long steep decline in USA manufacturing is not in evidence. And, in fact the USA’s output has grown substantially over this period. It has just grown more slowly than that of China (as has every other country), and so while output in the USA has grown the percentage with China has shrunk. The percentage of manufacturing output by the USA (excluding output from China) was 29.3% in 1990 and 29.6% in 2008. The second chart shows manufacturing output over time.

    charts showing the top manufacturing countries output from 1990-2008Chart showing the output of the top manufacturing countries from 1990-2008 by Curious Cat Management Blog, Creative Commons Attribution.

    The 2008 China data is not provided for manufacturing alone (the latest UN Data, for global manufacturing, in billions of current USA dollars). The percentage of manufacturing (to manufacturing, mining and utilities) was 78% for 2005-2007 (I used 78% of the manufacturing, mining and utilities figure provided in the 2008 data). There is a good chance this overstates China manufacturing output in 2008 (due to very high commodity prices in 2008).

    Hopefully these charts provide some evidence of what is really going on with global manufacturing and counteracts the hype, to some extent. Global economic data is not perfect. These figures are an attempt to capture the economic reality in the world but they are not a perfect proxy. This data is shown in 2008 USA dollars which is good in the sense that it shows all countries in the same light and we can compare the 1995 USA figure to 2005 without worrying about inflation. However foreign exchange fluctuations over time can show a country, for example, having a decline in manufacturing output in some year when in fact the output increased (just the decline against the USA dollar that year results in the data showing a decrease – which is accurate when measured in terms of USA dollars).

    If the dollar declines substantially between when the 2008 data was calculated and the 2009 data is calculated that will give result in the data showing a substantial increase in those countries that had a currency strengthen against the USA dollar. At this time the Chinese Renminbi has not strengthened while most other currencies have – the Chinese government is retaining a peg to a specific exchange rate.

    Korea (1.8% in 1990, 3% in 2008), Mexico (1.7% to 2.6%) and India (1.4% to 2.5%) were the only countries to increase their percentage of manufacturing output (other than China, of course, which grew from 3.9% to 18.5%).

    Related: posts on manufacturing – Global Manufacturing Data by Country (2007) – Global Manufacturing Employment Data – 1979 to 2007 – Top 10 Manufacturing Countries 2006 – Top 10 Manufacturing Countries 2005

  • Investors Sell TIPS as They Foresee Tame Inflation

    TIPS Drive Away Biggest Bond Bulls Seeing Inflation

    Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities are posting the biggest losses since Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. collapsed in 2008 as investors say they’re too expensive when consumer prices are barely rising.
    …
    TIPS pay interest on a principal amount that rises with consumer prices. Their face value is protected against deflation, because the principal can’t fall below par. The benchmark 1.375 10-year Treasury-Inflation Protected Security due January 2020 yields 1.45 percent.

    That’s 2.25 percentage points less than Treasuries of similar maturity that don’t provide protection from rising prices. The difference, known as the breakeven rate, reflects the pace of inflation investors expect over the life of the securities. The spread has fallen from the peak this year of 2.49 percentage points on Jan. 11.

    I believe that the risks of inflation are so low that TIPS are not a good way to invest some of your investment portfolio. At these low rates I agree TIPS are hardly a wonderful investment but I think it is worth sacrificing some yield to gain if inflation does return in a few years. But the argument for not buying TIPS is also sensible I think.

    Related: Bond Yields Show Dramatic Increase in Investor Confidence – Who Will Buy All the USA’s Debt? – Retirement Savings Allocation for 2010 – posts on bonds

  • Jubak Looks at What Stocks to Hold Now

    Excellent post by James Jubak, Get your portfolio ready for the profitless global economic recovery

    the world hasn’t begun to address the problems of excess capital and the excess production capacity that it creates under current economic rules, the global economic recovery is going to turn out to be extraordinarily profitless in industry after industry as producers with excess capacity cut prices in an effort to buy market share.
    …
    To avoid the trap of excess capacity killing even modest profits I think you have to look for sectors that have barriers that prevent excess capacity from driving down all prices as companies slit each other’s throats to acquire profitless market share.
    …
    Cisco is the IBM of the Internet—companies can buy the company’s gear and know that it will talk to the rest of the gear in their network (because Cisco probably sold them a good part of that gear and because everybody makes sure their gear works with Cisco equipment.) Plus Cisco has used recent acquisitions to continue its transformation from a simple—but globally dominant–seller of routers into a company that builds unified digital communications systems.

    A second is Google (GOOG). Yes, Google stands a good chance of getting kicked out of China with its 1.3 billion potential Internet users (How old does a baby need to be to use the Gmail?). But no company is better positioned for the long-term trend toward distributed computing over the Internet than Google.

    Both Google and Cisco have been long term investments in my 12 stocks for 10 years portfolio. Jubak’s blog is excellent: the best investing blog I know of. He does trade quite a bit more than I do but his performance has been exceptional.

    Related: Jubak Looks at 5 Technology Stocks – Why Investing is Safer Overseas – 10 Stocks for Income Investors – Tesco: Consistent Earnings Growth at Attractive Price

  • Initial 4th Quarter Data Show GDP Increased at 5.7% Annual Rate

    Real gross domestic product — the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States — increased at an annual rate of 5.7% in the fourth quarter of 2009, (that is, from the third quarter to the fourth quarter), according to the “advance” estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the third quarter, real GDP increased 2.2%.

    Real GDP decreased 2.4% in 2009 (that is, from the 2008 annual level to the 2009 annual level), in contrast to an increase of 0.4% in 2008. The price index for gross domestic purchases increased 0.1% in 2009, compared with an increase of 3.2% in 2008.

    The Bureau emphasized that the fourth-quarter advance estimate released today is based on source data that are incomplete or subject to further revision. The “second” estimate for the fourth quarter, based on more complete data, will be released on
    February 26, 2010.

    Related: China GDP up 8.7% in 2009 – 2nd Quarter 2009 USA GDP down 1% – Japanese Economy Grew at 3.7% Annual Rate in 2nd Quarter 2009

    The increase in real GDP in the fourth quarter primarily reflected positive contributions from private inventory investment, exports, and personal consumption expenditures (PCE). Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, increased.

    The change in real private inventories added 3.39 percentage points to the fourth-quarter change in real GDP after adding 0.69 percentage point to the third-quarter change. Private businesses decreased inventories $33.5 billion in the fourth quarter, following decreases of $139.2 billion in the third quarter and $160.2 billion in the second. Real final sales of domestic product — GDP less change in private inventories — increased 2.2% in the fourth quarter, compared with an increase of 1.5% in the third.
    (more…)

  • Market Inefficiencies and Efficient Market Theory

    Find below some interesting thoughts on financial markets and the efficient market theory. That theory essentially says the market prices are right given the available information. I think markets are somewhat efficient but there are plenty of opportunities to profit from inefficiencies in the market. Still it is not easy to consistently exploit these inefficiencies profitably.

    Capital Market Theory after the Efficient Market Hypothesis

    People see high returns in a particular sector, and they cannot tell whether the lower returns they are receiving are due to their fund manager’s proper avoidance of risk, or incompetent management. As they increasingly conclude that incompetence is to blame, funds shift to the new sector and this creates a self-reinforcing process where prices are driven above their fundamental values, i.e. a bubble occurs. It seems like such reallocation of investment funds could, if driven by a strong enough incentive, be enough on its own to drive a bubble even without an external source of liquidity.

    Capital market theory after the efficient market hypothesis by Dimitri Vayanos and Paul Woolley

    Capital market booms and crashes, culminating in the latest sorry and socially costly crisis, have discredited the idea that markets are efficient and that prices reflect fair value.
    …
    Theory has ignored the real world complication that investors delegate virtually all their involvement in financial matters to professional intermediaries – banks, fund managers, brokers – who dominate the pricing process.

    Delegation creates an agency problem. Agents have more and better information than the investors who appoint them, and the interests of the two are rarely aligned.
    …
    he new approach offers a more convincing interpretation of the way stock prices react to earnings announcements or other news. It also shows how short-term incentives, such as annual performance fees, cause fund managers to concentrate on high-turnover, trend-following strategies that add to the distortions in markets, which are then profitably exploited by long-horizon investors. At the level of national markets and entire asset classes, it will no longer be acceptable to say that competition delivers the right price or that the market exerts self-discipline.

    Related: Nicolas Darvas (investor and speculator) – Beating the Market, Suckers Game? – Lazy Portfolios Seven-year Winning Streak – Stop Picking Stocks? – Don’t miss future gains just because you missed past gains