Investing Curiouscatblog

Category: Financial Literacy

  • Politicians Again Raising Taxes On Your Children

    So yet again everyone in Washington DC wants to raise taxes on your children and grandchildren to spend money today. We might be going into a recession because the bubble of financing real estate led to people spending money they couldn’t pay back. So now home construction is decreasing, banks are having trouble meeting within capitalization requirement without huge inflows of capital from abroad, excess housing supply…

    The government has been spending huge amounts of money it doesn’t have for a long time. So what great ideas do our leaders have: put more burden on the children and grandchildren to pay for our spending today. What a sad state of affairs. And almost no-one seems to question this behavior.

    Is the idea that we would go into a recession so remote these leaders never imagined it could happen? No, of course they new it would happen. So what should a country, company, individual do if they know they have some expected event in the future they might want to spend money on? This isn’t really tricky. I would guess many 8 years olds understand the concept. You put the money in the piggy bank for when you will want to spend it.

    If you decide to spend not only all the money you have but borrow huge amounts that will tax your future earnings to pay back your current spending that is your choice (as long as you can find someone to lend you money). But as many parents have told their kids you have to live with the decisions you make. You don’t get to spend your money today. Spend tomorrows money today. Spend your kids money today. And then when, tomorrow comes, just spend all that money all over again. How can a country allow leaders to so transparently tax the future of the country?

    It is a sad state of affairs. The country chooses not to sent aside funds for obvious future needs. Then instead of accepting the hole they have dug for themselves decides to tax their children even more to continue the spendthrift ways. I think we not only need to have politicians actually read the bills before they vote (they refuse to pass such a law) they need to read about the ant and the grasshopper.

    I have no problem with the country choosing to set aside funds to use when they want to try and stave off a recessions (to pay for tax cuts or more spending). I do have a problem with: running enormous deficits every year, raising taxes on our children and grandchildren year after year, and then deciding to raise taxes even more on the future when the obvious happens and perfectly predictable desired expenditures present themselves. The get another credit card school of financial management (that everyone in Washington DC seems to practice) is not workable for a country over the long term. As anyone that has used that strategy personally will tell you – it works for awhile but eventually there are serious consequences.
    (more…)

  • Your Home as an Investment

    A house is where you live–not an investment

    If you’re living in the house you plan to live in for the rest of your life, you shouldn’t view it as an investment.

    Very good point – as long as you fall into that category of living there until you die. True for some people but far from all. Also, even for those people, it is not a complete view of the financial situation.

    A reverse mortgage will allow you to sell the house and get paid for the rest of the time you live there. So you can build up equity over 20,30,40 years and then take a reverse mortgage and get payments every month (based on your investing in your house). Reverse mortgages, like many financial tools, can be applied poorly and is I would guess unethical behavior related to them is fairly high (so be very careful!). If you think of such an option you need to do your research and actually understand what you are doing – you can’t afford to be like the many ignorant mortgagors. The AARP offers information on Reverse Mortgages.

    Additionally, you lock in a large part of your housing cost (you still have maintenance and taxes but you do not have every increasing rent. Now ever increasing rent is not a certainty but for many it is very likely rent will go up on average over the long term. Ownership of your home removes the risk of being priced out of the area you want to live by increasing rental prices over time. You also lose the potential of benefiting if rent prices fall over time, but I would say the more valuable of those options is avoiding the risk of rising rental prices.

    Related: How Not to Convert Equity – Housing Inventory Glut – articles on home ownership and real estate

  • Home Values and Rental Rates

    One way to evaluate the real estate market is to compare rental rates to home values. This can provide a comparison of an approximate cost of buying a house versus the cost to rent. As the ratio of monthly rent to home price increases, at least on this measure or real estate value, the market can be seen as becoming more expensive.

    Several points to keep in mind:

    1. This does not take into account things like tax rates (in higher tax areas the rents will be higher [since the owners will pass on that cost that is not reflected in the home price] – the ratio lower)
    2. This is only a comparison measure – it can be that rents also experience a bubble. So if rents experience a bubble then the ratio could stay low and fail to indicate an “expensive” market.
    3. Don’t rely on one measure – this is one useful measure there are plenty of others that matter for real estate prices (income levels, job growth, interest rates, zoning regulations…)

    The Rent-Price Ratio for the Aggregate Stock of Owner-Occupied Housing

    We show that the rent-price ratio ranged between 5 and 5-1/2 percent between 1960 and 1995, but rapidly declined after 1995. By year-end 2006, the rent-price ratio reached an historic low of 3-1/2 percent. For the rent-price ratio to return to its historical average over, say, the next five years, house prices
    likely would have to fall considerably.

    This paper is well worth reading. I would like to point out another factor here though. When those investing in real estate were focused largely on capital gains (say a few years ago) there could well have been an increased demand for rental property (which increased prices). That effect also moved extra supply into the rental market (that previously would have been sold to owners that would live there instead of investors). Those investors were more concerned with capital gains and it seems to me could well have been willing to accept lower rents just to have some cash coming in to help pay the expenses.

    As those investors no longer believe they will receive large capital gains in the short term it is possible they will be more focused on cash flow – and seek increased rents. I will not be surprised that rent prices increase as investors focus more on cash flow and stop assuming such large capital gains will be where their profits are made. Thus the ratio will close both by real estate value declines and rental price increases.

    Related: Explaining Rent-Home Price Ratios – True Rent-to-Price Ratio for Housing – articles on the real estate market – Real Estate Median Prices Down 1.5% in the Last Year – Rent Controls are Unwise

  • Rent Controls are Unwise

    Response to: The desirability of rent controls

    I do not believe rent controls are wise, in general. There are some options I wouldn’t mind – some sort of affordable housing that has breaks from the government (tax…) in exchange for a commitment to keep rental rates down. But wholesale rent controls are very unwise I believe.

    A related issue I find amusing. You will hear don’t regulate at all state that it is regulation preventing housing being constructed (zoning regulations) that create rising prices which they imply is unfair. It seems to me the data shows the opposite of what those people claim. People are willing to pay more for the regulated housing markets. That means the market forces value the regulation and in order to increase the economic utility (which is represented by what people will pay) more regulation should be used not less.

    Related: articles on real estate investing – regulatory risk (for rent control that would be the risk that investment property rights were limited due to rent control)

  • Bad Practice: .05% Interest From a Stock Broker

    Unfortunately it is not uncommon to find companies that choose to line their pockets at the expense of customers. I wish we could find companies that want to provide good value and make some profit by doing so. My stock broker used to allow clients idle cash to be invested and earn a reasonably decent rate (not Vanguard money market fund but you know for a company that doesn’t want to provide the best customer value a least something remotely approaching fair). This year (or last year) they stopped doing so and switched to the following rate structure:

    Dollar Range Interest Rate Annual Percentage Yield
    $0.01-$4,999 0.04999% 0.05%
    $5,000-$24,999 0.04999% 0.05%
    $25,000-$99,999 0.29959% 0.30%

    You might think they make an error and mean 5% and just put the decimal in the wrong place but you would be wrong. It used to be leaving your money in money market accounts with the broker wasn’t great but the 50+ basis point hit was worth the convenience. Now HSBC pays 4.25% for online savings. So at 100 times what the broker pays they would be slightly higher than HSBC. Sorry paying 1/85 of what HSBC pays is not just talking a bit of your clients money for yourself. That is obscene. You can no longer trust that your stock broker will only talk 50+ basis points of you money market earnings. Take a look at your account and setup an account with HSBC, Vanguard (current yield 4.64%) or something similar that pays a reasonable rate for any short term savings.

    If your broker pays less than 2% on a money market account of $5,000 that is a scary sign. What else they might be doing that isn’t so obviously unfair is difficult to know. Getting above 4% for a cash saving account now is pretty good, in my opinion.

    Related: Customer Hostility from Discover Card – Frugality Versus Better Returns – Learning About Personal Loans

  • $8,000 Per Gallon

    $8,000-per-gallon printer ink leads to antitrust lawsuit

    For most printer companies, ink is the bread and butter of their business. The price of ink for HP ink-jet printers can be as much as $8,000 per gallon, a figure that makes gas-pump price gouging look tame. HP is currently the dominant company in the printing market, and a considerable portion of the company’s profits come from ink.

    The printer makers have been waging an all-out war against third-party vendors that sell replacement cartridges at a fraction of the price. The tactics employed by the printer makers to maintain monopoly control over ink distribution for their printing products have become increasingly aggressive. In the past, we have seen HP, Epson, Lenovo and other companies attempt to use patents and even the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in their efforts to crush third-party ink distributors.

    The companies have also turned to using the ink equivalent of DRM, the use of microchips embedded in ink cartridges that work with a corresponding technical mechanism in the printer that blocks the use of unauthorized third-party ink.

    Tip – by a printer from a company that doesn’t rip you off as much for ink: The Kodak 5300 All-in-One Printer, which uses ultra low-priced ink to help you save up to 50 percent. Kodak has made the strategic decision to compete with the entrenched printing companies by not ripping off customers as much.

    Related: Kodak Debuts Printers With Inexpensive Cartridges – Price Discrimination in the Internet Age – Zero Ink Printing – Open Source 3-D Printing

  • Freezing Mortgage Rates

    “If you owe the bank $100 that’s your problem. If you owe the bank $100 million, that’s the bank’s problem.” J. Paul Getty

    Individual mortgage holders are in the first situation; together they are in the second.

    I want to look into this whole situation of freezing some adjustable rates (that are scheduled to increase for adjustable rate mortgages) more – because I don’t really understand what is actually involved in the “agreement.” But my impression is that the government is paying nothing, giving no other incentives (like reducing taxes owed). With that being the case I can’t see why some people think it is bad. some people are saying it is unfair to people that were careful They don’t get this benefit. That makes little sense to me. One of the things you have to learn about investing and personal finance is there are no guaranties. You enter into mortgages with your best guess about what will happen (as the lender or the one receiving the loan).

    From my very surface understanding of what is involved is that the government used some moral suasion to try and get lenders to step up and provide more favorable terms than originally agreed to. I not that confident such a think we end up happening in practice but I don’t have a problem with the attempt. It is an interesting case where no single mortgage holder owes enough to harm the lenders but together the class does hold enough to harm them. So the lenders have gotten themselves into a situation where the problem is not just one for the mortgage holders but one that could harm them (because they have too much lent to the class – risky residential mortgages).

    The risk of a cascading bad impact. One waive of foreclosures triggers another and another… Thus creating huge losses for lenders. For that reason it makes sense to me that if (which is a huge if) they class of lenders can all agree to sacrifice some to avoid starting the runaway cascade of foreclosures they may benefit. Of course each individual lender would likely benefit if just everyone but them sacrificed.

    It seems to me if there really is some significant amount of freezing of loan rates that will have a significant impact on how much harm the foreclosures do to real estate prices and the economy. And so I can see how such an agreement could benefit everyone. But as I say I really need to read more about all this. And I am skeptical that individual lenders will try to limit there sacrifices and as each cuts back there sacrifice the risk of the cascade increases.

    An actually bailout – government money paying off those that took bad financial risks I would be very reluctant to support.

    Related: How Not to Convert Equity – Housing Inventory Glut – mortgage terms explained – 30 year fixed Mortgage Rates – Homes Entering Foreclosure at Record – Ignorance of Many Mortgage Holders – Beginning of the End of Housing Bubble? (April 2004)
    (more…)

  • Goldman Sachs Rakes In Profit in Credit Crisis

    Goldman Sachs Rakes In Profit in Credit Crisis

    Rarely on Wall Street, where money travels in herds, has one firm gotten it so right when nearly everyone else was getting it so wrong. So far, three banking chief executives have been forced to resign after the debacle, and the pay for nearly all the survivors is expected to be cut deeply.

    But for Goldman’s chief executive, Lloyd C. Blankfein, this is turning out to be a very good year. He will surely earn more than the $54.3 million he made last year. If he gets a 20 percent raise – in line with the growth of Goldman’s compensation pool – he will take home at least $65 million. Some expect his pay, which is directly tied to the firm’s performance, to climb as high as $75 million.
    …
    This contrast in performance has been hard for competitors to swallow. The bank that seems to have a hand in so many deals and products and regions made more money in the boom and, at least so far, has managed to keep making money through the bust. In turn, Goldman’s stock has significantly outperformed its peers. At the end of last week it was up about 13 percent for the year, compared with a drop of almost 14 percent for the XBD, the broker-dealer index that includes the leading Wall Street banks. Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns and Citigroup are down almost 40 percent this year.

    Interesting story with at least a couple of good points to remember. First it does make a difference what company you chose. There are many market conditions where anyone can make money, but those conditions will change. Also look at the type of pay these people get. The CEO’s take huge risks to possibly get even more obscenely paid. It is absolutely no surprise to me the companies write off hundreds of millions in losses. It happens constantly. Executives are paid ludicrous salaries. In order to try and justify them they take huge risks. When the gambles pay off they pocket even huger bonuses. When they fail they pocket huge severance packages. Who wouldn’t bet the future of the company for that kind of money. Some people wouldn’t but not many that fight there way to the top of the corporate world. Right now it is banks writing off hundreds of millions but just watch every year companies do it. It is not some isolated rare event – it is predictable, common happening.

    And third the financal markets are much riskier than people think. Combine that with leverage and you get huge swings – huge profits and huge losses. I suppose some company may be able to guess just write about when to leverage and make the changes at just the right time – but I doubt it. A few great investors might be able too much of the time.

  • Frontline Explores Kiva in Uganda

    Frontline World traveled to Uganda to explore the impact of microfinance and provide some great details on how Kiva is bringing economic opportunity to entrepreneurs. The site includes details and a nice webcast. It is great to see how people can connect directly using Kiva. And it is great to see how people can take small loans and some effort and financial literacy to make a living for themselves. The effort of these entrepreneurs to manage their finances would benefit many people in the rich world plan for retirement…

    As I have mentioned before, if you loan through Kiva send me a link to your Kiva page and I can add it to the Curious Cat Kivans page.

    Related: Make the World Better Using Capitalism – Helping People Help Themselves – Make the World Better – How Rich are You

  • Tips To Allow Retiring Sooner

    The Motely Fool is one of the best web sites for learning about investing (it is one of the sites included in our investing links – on the left column of this page). A recent article on the site is worth reading – Ways to Retire Sooner:

    Add cash… It takes a little more than $550 per month in savings earning a 7% return to get to $1 million over the course of a 35-year career. But if you can add just $100 per month to that — including what your employer puts in and your tax savings — you can cut more than two years off your wait.
    Embrace stocks Saving more is great, but there’s only so much you’ll be able to put aside. You have to make the most of what you have. People are often too conservative in their retirement investments. Despite the sometimes-violent ups and downs of the stock market, the long-term return on stocks far exceeds that of less risky investments like bonds and bank savings accounts.

    These are not exactly earth shattering recommendation but so many people fail to take even the most basic steps to assure a economically viable retirement the simple advice needs to be re-enforced. No one piece of advice can assure success but by educating yourself about investing and retirement planning and taking steps when you are in your 20s, 30s and 40s you can succeed. You can also succeed without doing anything in your 20s it just means you have to do more work later. Those that get started earlier get a huge advantage.

    Related: Saving for Retirement – Retirement Tips from TIAA CREF – Retiring Later, Out of Necessity – investment risks – IRA (Individual Retirement Accounts)