Investing Curiouscatblog

Category: Financial Literacy

  • Retirement Savings Allocation for 2010

    I adjusted my future retirement account 401(k) allocations today. I do not have as favorable an opinion of investing in the stock market today as I did a year ago. I would likely have allocated 20% to a money market fund except my 401(k) actually has two options – 1 paying 0.0% and the other paying -.02%.

    They seem to believe they should make a significant profit while providing a horrible return (they are still taking over .5% of assets in fees – even though rates do not cover their fees). Those running funds have very little interest in providing value for 401(k) participants – they are mainly interested in raising fees (though supposedly they are suppose to be run by people with a fiduciary responsibility to the investors). Unfortunately most 401(k)s lock you away from the best options for an investor (such as Vanguard Funds).

    My current allocation for future funds is 40% to USA stocks, 40% to Global stocks and 20% to inflation adjusted bonds. My current allocation in this retirement account is 10% real estate, 35% global stocks, 55% USA stocks. For all my retirement savings it is probably about 5% real estate, 35% global stocks, 5% money market, 55% USA stocks (which is a fairly aggressive mix).

    As I have said many times I do not like bonds at this time. I don’t think the interest nearly justifies the risk of capital loss (due to inflation or interest rate risk). Inflation protected bonds are a much more acceptable option for someone that is worried about inflation (like I am over the next 10-20 years).

    A number of the stock fund (even bond fund) options in my 401(k) have expense ratios above 1%. That is unacceptable. The average fees on the options I chose were .5%.

    With my employee match I am adding over 10% of my income to my 401(k), which I think is a good aim for most everyone. Far too many people are unwilling to forgo luxuries to save appropriately for their retirement. This is a sign of financial illiteracy and an unwillingness to accept the responsibilities of modern life.

    Related: Investing – My Thoughts at the End of 2009 – 401(k)s are a Great Way to Save for Retirement – Saving for Retirement – Managing Retirement Investment Risks

  • USA Spends Record $2.3 trillion ($7,681 Per Person) on Health Care in 2008

    Nominal health spending in the United States grew 4.4% in 2008, to $2.3 trillion or $7,681 per person. This was the slowest rate of growth since the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services started officially tracking expenditures in 1960, yet once again outpaced nominal GDP growth (2.6% in 2008). This brings health care spending to 16.2% of GDP. In 2003 the total health care spending was 15.3% of GDP.

    The huge amount being spent continues to grow to an even larger percentage of GDP every year. The damage to the economy of the dysfunctional health care system in the USA is huge. For comparison the total GDP per person in China is $5,970 (the closest total country per capita GDP, to the health care spending per capita in the USA, is Thailand at $7,703 – World Bank data). The average spending by OECD countries (Europe/USA/Japan…) was $2,966 per person in 2007 (the USA was at $7,290). In 2007 Canada spent $3,895; France $3,601; UK $2,992; Japan $2,581.

    • Hospital spending in 2008 grew 4.5% to $718 billion, compared to 5.9% in 2007, the slowest rate of increase since 1998.
    • Physician and clinical services’ spending increased 5.0% in 2008 to $496 billion, a deceleration from 5.8% in 2007.
    • Retail prescription drug spending growth also decelerated to 3.2% in 2008 as per capita use of prescription medications declined slightly, mainly due to impacts of the recession, a low number of new product introductions, and safety and efficacy concerns. Drug prices increased 2.5% in 2008.
    • Spending growth for both nursing home and home health services decelerated in 2008. For nursing homes, spending grew 4.6% in 2008 compared to 5.8% in 2007.
    • Total health care spending by public programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, grew 6.5% in 2008, the same rate as in 2007.
    • Health care spending by private sources of funds grew only 2.6% in 2008 compared to 5.6 percent in 2007.
    • Private health insurance premiums grew 3.1% in 2008, a deceleration from 4.4% in 2007. Remember many people lost their jobs and did without insurance. Doing so results in reduced spending on health insurance but is far from a good sign.
    • Home health care spending growth decelerated from 11.8% in 2007 to 9.0% in 2008. Expenditures reached $64.7 billion in 2008. You can understand why investors (and companies) are looking to invest in home health care.

    At the aggregate level, the shares of financing for health services and supplies by businesses (23%), households (31%), other private sponsors (3%), and governments (42%) have remained relatively steady over time. Between 2007 and 2008; however, the federal government share increased significantly (from 23 to 25%), while the state and local government share declined (from 18 to 17%).

    Decades ago Dr. Deming included excessive health care costs as one of the seven deadly diseases of western management. We have only seen the problem get worse. Finally it seems that a significant number of people are in agreement that the system is broken.
    (more…)

  • Elizabeth Warren Webcast On Failure to Fix the System

    Elizabeth Warren is the single person I most trust with understanding the problems of our current credit crisis and those who perpetuate the climate that created the crisis. Unfortunately those paying politicians are winning in their attempts to retain the current broken model. We can only hope we start implementing policies Elizabeth Warren supports – all of which seem sensible to me (except I am skeptical on her executive pay idea until I hear the specifics).

    She is completely right that the congress giving hundreds of billions of dollars to those that give Congressmen big donations is wrong. Something needs to be done. Unfortunately it looks like the taxpayers are again looking to re-elect politicians writing rules to help those that pay the congressmen well (one of the problems is there is little alternative – often both the Democrat and Republican candidates will both provide favors to those giving them the largest bribes/donations – but you get the government you deserve and we don’t seem to deserve a very good one). We suffer now from the result of them doing so the last 20 years. Wall Street has a winning model and betting against their ability to turn Washington into a way for them to mint money and be favored by Washington rule making is probably a losing bet. If Wall Street wins the cost will again be in the Trillions for the damage caused to the economy.

    Related: If you Can’t Explain it, You Can’t Sell It – Jim Rogers on the Financial Market Mess – Misuse of Statistics – Mania in Financial Markets – Skeptics Think Big Banks Should Not be Bailed Out

  • House Votes to Restore Partial Estate Tax Very Richest: Over $7 Million

    As I have said previously, capitalists support the estate and inheritance taxes. Not those that see themselves as nobility, and call wish to be called capitalists, that want to reward the children of the wealthy (because we all know they need more advantages than they already get). While the Democrats voted in favor of capitalism (letting those who earn wealth prosper) instead of supporting nobility, as has been the recent trend, they did so only for the richest few. So they decided Kings and Queens should not pass all their wealth to the kids (still they can pass more than 50% of it – oh don’t you feel sorry for those poor kids you might have to get just $3.85 million instead of the $7 million they “need”). So the Democrats decided all the children of Lords, Dukes, Earls… should not have to have their trust funds impinged in any way.

    The House voted 225-200 to indefinitely extend the current tax, which imposes a top rate of 45 percent.

    “We make the estate tax go away for 99.75 percent of the people in the country,” said North Dakota Democrat Earl Pomeroy, the main sponsor. Republicans who voted against the measure said they favored repealing the levy.

    Congress in 2001 decided to drop the estate tax in 2010 before reinstating it in 2011 at the previous higher top rate of 55 percent for estates valued at more than $1 million.

    Isn’t it amazing how little the children of wealthy are asked to share in the huge inheritances they get. But until the economic literacy of the country improves they are able to pretend noble blood lines passing down huge fortunes are not just those with the gold making the rules.

    You might notice the government is in pretty desperate need of money. But some still think asking the kids of the super rich to part with some of their inheritance is too much to ask. I wish they would learn about economics. It is not capitalist to reward being born in the right house with more cash than than many will every earn working 40 plus years (a 50% inheritance tax on the super rich is less than it should be – and it shouldn’t be just the super rich that pay inheritance tax). Maybe exempt $1-2 million and index that. The next million at 50%. Then increase the rate 5% every million. I don’t really see any need to give some kid $100 million because they happen to have been born to a rich parent. Capitalism is about rewarding economic productivity not the birth lottery.

    Related: Rich Americans Sue to Keep Evidence of Their Tax Evasion From the Justice Department – Killing Capitalism in Favor of Special Interests – Ignorance of Capitalism – Charge It to My Kids – Buffett on Taxes

  • NY State Raises Pension Age to Save $48 Billion

    N.Y. Raises Pension Requirements to Save $48 Billion

    New York state’s pension program will raise the retirement age and financial contributions for new workers to save the state and local governments about $48 billion over 30 years.
    …
    For new workers, the bill raises the age for retirement without penalty to 62 from 55, imposes a 38 percent penalty on non-uniformed workers who retire before 62 and increases the minimum years of service to draw a pension to 10 from 5, according to Paterson’s office.

    Overtime payments included in calculating pension benefits will be capped at $15,000 a year for civilian workers, and 15 percent of wages for police and firefighters.

    Raising the retirement age from 55 to 62 (for new workers) is something that should have been done decades ago. 62 is too young for a full retirement age. If a country has the life expectancies we do they either need to have huge retirement savings (which for NY State would mean huge taxes to support that level of retirement savings) or live off the wealth saved in previous generations (or count on taxes of future generations).

    Unfortunately for too long all of the USA we have chosen not to save for retirement when we work and then retire when we still have decades to live (on average). That is not sustainable. You can only add so much to the credit card (buy now let someone pay later strategy). Increasing from 55 to 62 is a good move. But it is too little and too late. More should be done.

    Saving for retirement is not complicated. It is just that many people would rather speed money now and now save it. That is easy to understand but it is not helped if we make it sound like saving for retirement is hard. It takes some discipline. But certainly adults should be able to show some discipline. We have to stop acting like not saving for retirement is somehow acceptable. It is no more acceptable than those that had to store food for the winter a few hundred years ago deciding they would rather go swimming all summer and worry about the winter later.

    And state governments should not provide out-sized retirement benefits which must be paid for by the taxpayers. 80 years ago maybe setting the retirement age at 55 made sense. It certainly did not for new workers in 1980 (or 1990 or 2000 at least now in 2009 they are making a move in the right direction).

    Related: Working Longer and Delaying Retirement – Many Retirees Face Prospect of Outliving Savings – Pushing your financial problems into the future – Gen X Retirement

  • Dollar Decline Due to Government Debt or Total Debt?

    With the dollar declining sharply, many are focused on the issue now. And the most common culprit for blame seems to be the federal debt. While I agree the dollar is likely to fall, the deficit doesn’t seem like the main reason, to me. The federal debt is large and growing quickly, which is a problem. But still the USA federal debt to GDP is lower than the OECD average. Even with a few more years of crazy federal debt growth the USA will still be below that average.

    Japan has by far the highest level of government debt in the OECD. The Yen is not collapsing. The debt is a factor but the lack of saving (USA consuming more than it produces) seems the biggest problem to me. China not only does not have large government debt it has large amounts of personal savings. People have been living far within their means in Japan and China (only by government intervention, due to desires to not have the currency appreciate has that appreciation been slowed).

    Thankfully we have been increasing savings a bit recently but it is a drop in the bucket so far (Consumer Debt Down Over $100 Billion So Far in 2009). It will have to increase in size and continue for years to begin to address the problems in a significant way.

    Related: The USA Economy Needs to Reduce Personal and Government Debt (March 2009) – The Truth Behind China’s Currency Peg – Who Will Buy All the USA’s Debt?

  • Hans Rosling Data on Economic Development and Health Results

    Hans Rosling uses his fascinating data-bubble software to burst myths about the developing world. Look for new analysis on China and the post-bailout world, mixed with classic data shows.

    “The worldview students have corresponds to reality the year their teachers were born”

    The software he uses, the very cool Gapminder world, developed by his son and bought by Google is available online.

    He also correctly congratulates the USA for providing free data it has collected worldwide, for decades, on world health. And correctly criticizes the World Bank for selling the data they compile using taxpayer funds.

    Related: Data Visualization Health Care Example – Economic Measurement Issues Arising from Globalization – Millennium Development Goals – Government Debt Compared to GDP 1990-2007

  • The Truth Behind China’s Currency Peg

    Peter Schiff does a good job of explaining The Truth Behind China’s Currency Peg

    The peg, they argue, offers China a competitive advantage by making its products cheaper in U.S. markets, thus allowing Chinese firms to gobble up market share and steal jobs from U.S. manufacturers. The thought is that were China to allow its currency to rise, American manufactures would regain their lost edge, and both manufacturing firms and the jobs formerly associated with them would return.
    …
    In fact, for the U.S., de-pegging would cause the economic equivalent of cardiac arrest. Our economy is currently on life support provided by an endless flow of debt financing from China. These purchases are the means by which China maintains the relative value of its currency against the dollar. As the dollar comes under even more downward pressure, China’s purchases must increase to keep the renminbi from rising. By maintaining the peg, China enables our politicians and citizens to continue spending more than they have and avoiding the hard choices necessary to restore our long-term economic health.
    …
    As demand falls for both dollars and Treasuries, prices and interest rates in the United States will rise. Rising rates will restrict the flow of credit that is currently financing government and consumer spending. This change will finally force a long overdue decline in borrowing.
    …
    De-pegging will force the hand of U.S. politicians toward pursuing realistic policies. The Chinese will come to their senses eventually because it is in their interest to do so. Meanwhile, the longer the peg is maintained, the more indebted we become, the more out of balance our economy grows, and the more our industrial base shrivels. In short, the longer they wait, the steeper our fall.

    I agree the largest impact of the currency peg on the USA is supporting our economy in the short run. If we didn’t go into huge debt it would actually be good for the USA for the long run too. Essentially China subsidies our purchases and borrowing. The problem is that we have taken a good thing too far and become used to living beyond our means. That is not sustainable – even with a subsidy from China.

    I disagree that the USA manufacturing base is hollowed out. It is strong in comparison to the rest of the world, except China. China’s manufacturing growth has been phenomenal, compared to that everyone looks weak. Manufacturing jobs are disappearing everywhere, not just in the USA.

    Related: Top 10 Manufacturing Countries in 2008 – China and the Sugar Industry Tax Consumers – Why the Dollar is Falling – Who Will Buy All the USA’s Debt? – Peter Schiff Answers Redditers Questions

  • If you Can’t Explain it, You Can’t Sell It

    Over the last few years Elizabeth Warren has become one of my favorite leaders. She is a leader in economic thought, ethical society and the law (she is a law professor at Harvard Law School). Far too many on Wall Street, Washington and in C-suites are leading us down a very bad path. She is a voice we need to heed.

    If you can’t explain it, you can’t sell it

    “We need a new model: If you can’t explain it, you can’t sell it,”
    …
    The 1966 high school debate champion of Oklahoma may get what she wants. The House of Representatives will vote in December on her idea. She suggested a Financial Product Safety Commission in a 2007 article in the magazine Democracy [Unsafe at Any Rate]. President Barack Obama proposed it to Congress in June as the Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

    Warren won’t discuss whether she may be a candidate to lead the authority, which would have the power to regulate $13.7 trillion of debt products. A Warren nomination would tell banks that Obama is determined to force reduced checking-account fees and limit lender claims in mortgage advertising, among other measures the industry opposes, said Thomas Cooley, dean of New York University’s Stern School of Business.
    …
    In her role overseeing the TARP, Warren has been critical of the administration, accusing the Treasury Department of undervaluing the stock warrants that were supposed to compensate taxpayers when banks repay their bailouts. A lack of transparency about how TARP functions “erodes the very confidence” it was to restore, her committee said in a report.

    I hope she can take her attempts to reduce political favors being granted huge financial institutions and those institution be forced to follow sensible rules to protect individuals and our economy. With a few more people like there we will have a much better chance of a positive economic future.

    Related: Bogle on the Retirement Crisis – Bankruptcies Among Seniors Soaring – Don’t Let the Credit Card Companies Play You for a Fool – http://investing.curiouscatblog.net/2009/04/08/the-best-way-to-rob-a-bank-is-as-an-executive-at-one/

  • Financial Transactions Tax to Pay Off Wall Street Welfare Debt

    Is it cynical to think that politicians want to provide payments from the treasury to those that paid the politicians? More cynical to think the politicians that created huge Wall Street Welfare payments won’t actually do anything except talk about how they think it is bad that those they paid billions to are buying new mansions and yachts? More cynical to think they will continue to provide huge amounts of nearly free cash for those that paid them to speculate with? More cynical to think if any of those speculators lose money they will give them more welfare? More cynical to think those bought and paid for politicians won’t actually take any steps to tax or curtail speculation? I think maybe I am cynical about Washington doing anything other than talk about how they don’t want to provide huge amounts of cash to Wall Street all the while giving their Wall Street friends huge amounts of cash that will be paid back by our grandchildren.

    Wouldn’t it be nice if the politicians actually took actions to fund a partial payback of the hundreds of billions (or maybe trillions) of bailout dollars by taxing financial speculation? I doubt it will happen. But maybe I am too cynical. Maybe politicians will not just do what they have been paid to do. But it seems the best predictor of what congress will do is based on what they are paid to do, based on their past and current behavior. Now what congress will say is very different. those paying Congressmen might not love it if the congressmen call them names but through a few billion more and they are happy to be called names while given the cash to buy new jets and sports teams and parties for their daughters.

    Making Wall Street pay by Dean Baker

    We can raise large amounts of money by taxing the speculation of the Wall Street high-flyers while barely affecting the sort of financial dealings that most of us do in our daily lives.

    The logic of a financial transactions tax is simple. It would impose a modest fee on trades of stocks, futures, credit default swaps and other financial instruments. For example, the UK puts a 0.25% tax on the sale or purchase of shares of stock. This has very little impact on people who buy stock with the intent of holding it for a long period of time.
    …
    We can raise more than $140bn a year taxing financial transactions, an amount equal to 1% of GDP.
    …
    Since the financial sector is the source of the country’s current economic and budget problems it also makes sense to have this sector bear the brunt of any new taxes that may be needed. The economic collapse caused by Wall Street’s irrational exuberance has led to a huge increase in the country debt burden. It seems only fair that Wall Street bear the brunt of the clean-up costs. A financial transactions tax is the way to make sure that this happens.

    (more…)