Investing Curiouscatblog

Blog

  • USA Federal Debt Now $516,348 Per Household

    The federal debt is not officially calculated the way that other accounting is done. Future obligations are not included, thus promising ever larger payments for health and retirement programs are not accurately reflected in government official debt totals. There are some legitimate arguments for why using exactly the same standards as others does not make sense for the federal government accounting. However the current methods make it too easy for politicians to claim they are not spending our grandchildren’s money for promises they make today. Rules ‘hiding’ trillions in debt:

    Modern accounting requires that corporations, state governments and local governments count expenses immediately when a transaction occurs, even if the payment will be made later. The federal government does not follow the rule, so promises for Social Security and Medicare don’t show up when the government reports its financial condition.

    Bottom line: Taxpayers are now on the hook for a record $59.1 trillion in liabilities, a 2.3% increase from 2006. That amount is equal to $516,348 for every U.S. household. By comparison, U.S. households owe an average of $112,043 for mortgages, car loans, credit cards and all other debt combined.

    Foisting debts on our grandchildren because we elect politicians that refuse to either cut spending (and promised spending) or raise taxes is a sad legacy of the last 30 years for the USA.

    Related: Washington Paying Out Money it Doesn’t Have – Is the USA Broke – The Fallacy of Estate Tax Repeal – Social Security Trust Fund

  • 12 Stocks for 10 Years Update – Jun 2007

    I originally setup the 10 stocks for 10 years portfolio in April of 2005. In order to track performance I setup a marketocracy portfolio but had to make some adjustment to comply with the diversification rules. In December of 2006 I announced a new 11 stocks for the next 10 years (9 are the same, I dropped First Data Corporation, which had split into 2 companies and added Tesco and Yahoo). Now I will add Templeton Emerging Market Fund (EMF) making it 12 stocks for the next 10 years. I like the emerging market area and liked the concentration in China and southeast Asia the Dragon fund offered. I still do, but given the rapid rise in the Chinese market especially other markets look more attractive than previously. EMF will allow for a wider geographic representation.

    At this time the stocks in the marketocracy portfolio in order of returns –
    Google (134% return, 15% of the marketocracy portfolio, 12% of portfolio if I were buying today)
    PetroChina (127%, 7.5%, 8%)
    Amazon (92%, 6%, 6%)
    Templeton Dragon Fund (73%, 11.5%, 10%)
    Toyota (69%, 10%, 10%)
    Cisco (54%, 6%, 8%)
    Tesco (14% [22.55 purchase price on Dec 11th 2006]*, 0, 10%)
    Templeton Emerging Market Fund (EMF) (15%, 2%, 4%)
    Intel (6%, 4%, 8%)
    Pfizer (-6%, 4%, 8%)
    Yahoo (-12%, 4%, 6%)
    Dell (-23%, 6%, 10%)
    (more…)

  • Incredibly Bad Customer Service from Discover Card

    So I had a Discover Card. They charged me for charges I didn’t authorize. They then force me through their maze of policies telling me that it was not possible to be more customer friendly – their policies couldn’t be any different they were the policy (as if that made any sense). So Discover Card had to shut down my account. I told them if they couldn’t provide better service then I didn’t want a new account after they closed my account which was the only way they wouldn’t charge me for charges I didn’t authorize. They owed me $240 from their cashback bonus program. Now they refuse to pay me the money I earned because they say that it is their policy not to pay the cashback bonus if an account is closed.

    After going around on that for awhile and them assuring me it was their policy and it was not possible for it to be done any other way by them or anyone else I asked what happened if someone died. Oh then the account is closed and we pay the money we owe on the cashback bonus. So obviously it isn’t that the account being closed makes it impossible for Discover to pay what was owed. It seems pretty obvious it is just a good way to take money Discover owes and just count on people not wanting to waste their time fighting to get what Discover owed them. Maybe one of their marketing people told them doing this to people that just had a parent/spouse… die might be bad publicity so they decided to actual pay what was owed in those instances. Jeez why can’t credit card companies just provide good service and treat customers well instead of only doing the absolute least they can that won’t spark outrage from the public and legislative action to prohibit such practices (I image not paying what was owed to people that died would spark legislative action if it wasn’t already illegal).

    Is it really legal to charge someone for charges they didn’t authorize and when they tell you they didn’t authorize them refuse to do anything about it if they don’t close their account and then say we are not going to pay your cashback bonus because your account is closed? it seems to be yet another instance of credit card companies doing everything they can to take money from customers. Of course they claimed it was impossible to do anything else it was their policy to do it this way and no other credit card company is any different.
    (more…)

  • Why Investing is Safer Overseas

    Jim Jubak makes a good case for why investing is safer overseas now.

    To which I say: Wake up and smell the new world order. The U.S. financial markets are relatively riskier now than they were five years ago, and (many) emerging country financial markets are relatively less risky. If you haven’t updated your view of what’s called country risk in the last five years, you’re costing yourself money.
    …
    And as I look ahead, I see few signs that the United States will put its financial ship into better trim and lower the country risk that comes with owning U.S. equities and bonds.
    …
    I think you need to compare markets one by one to look for those where investors, who tend to stick with the conventional wisdom until something whacks them over the head, have mispriced risk. The countries that I find particularly interesting as investment targets are those that have made the biggest strides in getting their houses in order.

    He makes a good point. I have long advocated the benefits of international investing. And looking forward the potential for economic development (and investment gains) outside the USA are strong. As he says this does not mean abandoning the USA stock market but does mean thinking about increasing ownership of foreign stocks (probably using mutual funds though in our 10 stocks for 10 year portfolio we have 3 individual stocks: Toyota, Tesco (added in the December 2006 update), PetroChina and Templeton Dragon Fund [closed end mutual fund]).

    Related: State of the nation? Broke – Our Only Hope: Retiring Later

  • Fourteen Fold Increase in 31 Years

    chart of house price increases by country

    From 1975 to 2006 house prices in the UK increased 14 times. At 14 times that works out to about a 9% annual rate of return which is doesn’t sound nearly as impressive as a 14 fold increase to most people (I believe). The article does not mention if the chart is adjusted for inflation (a 9% return after inflation is incredibly good, a 9% return before factoring in inflation – which would reduce the rate of return – is good but reasonable) – my guess is that the chart is adjusted for inflation (meaning Britain’s owning real estate have been fortunate). Online calculator for annual rates of return over time.

    Real estate rate of returns (when calculated on the total price) also underestimate the “real return” most investors experience because investors often only put down a portion of the investment. So the real rate of return is increased dramatically to the investor as a result of the the multiplier effect of buying on margin. Of course, real estate also has expense related to upkeep and the advantage of providing a place to live…

    The graph (from the economist – see: Through the roof) shows other countries, USA: about 6 times, France 9 times… Remember these rates are averages for entire countries some areas in each country will have far exceeded these rates.

    The graph could be a bit better if they didn’t make several of the colors almost the same.

    Related: More Non Bubble Bursting in Housing – Europe and USA Housing Price Boom – How Not to Convert Equity – 30 year fixed Mortgage Rates

  • Study on Real Estate Sales With and Without Realtors

    Realtors take a large percentage of a home’s sale price for their services. It has never made much sense to me. It does not seem like the services are proportional to the sales price. I don’t see how it costs 5 times more to sell a $1,000,000 house than a $200,000 house. The Freakonomics authors have commented on the problems caused by the way realtors charge for services.

    Study Offers Provocative Comparison of Selling a Home:

    The research suggests that some sellers seem to be better at getting a favorable price. They might be better at marketing and bargaining or are more patient; they also are more likely to choose to use FSBO. “Sellers in Madison appear to sort themselves as expected across platforms, the more patient and astute ones going to FSBO, and those who need more help or a quick transaction going to MLS,” said Ortalo-Magné.

    “Our results are good news for buyers,” he said. “The price buyers pay appears to be driven entirely by the characteristics of the property and of the seller. Whether the property is sold through FSBOMadison.com or a realtor appears to make little difference in terms of purchase price.” “Realtors undoubtedly can provide value to sellers,” Nevo concluded. “But our research shows that for-sale-by-owner Web sites increasingly are making selling your own home more appealing and offering a viable alternative to realtors.”

    Study: The Relative Performance of Real Estate Marketing Platforms: MLS versus FSBOMadison.com (pdf)

  • Frugality Versus Better Returns

    Very nice illustration in Personal Finance Success Comes More From Smart Budgeting Than Smart Investing:

    Let’s say Kevin and I both make $50,000 a year. Kevin spends his spare time chasing individual stocks; I spend my spare time looking for frugal living ideas. Kevin spends $45,000 in a year and is thus able to invest $5,000 a year, while I, through budgeting and frugal living, only spend $40,000 in a year and am thus able to invest $10,000 a year.

    Now, Kevin’s a smart investing cookie and is able to crank out a 16% return each year. I just take my money, dump it in a Vanguard 500, and move on with life, which means over the long haul I earn a 12% return. Who earns more in the long run?

    After five years of this same investing, Kevin has $34,385.68 in his investment account, while I have $63,528.47 in mine, a difference of $29,142.79 in the frugal guy’s favor. Even at the twenty five year mark, if the investments have continued for that long, Kevin has $1,246,070.12 in his account, while I have $1,333,338.70 in mine, a difference of $87,268.58.

    I would use lower returns (to better match what I think is reasonable to use in projections about the future) but by using higher returns it actually makes a stronger point (the compounding at 16% is extraordinary – I was actually surprised that at the 25 year mark that the results were the way they were). The lesson is powerful. Your personal finance situation is a factor of several things, but very close to the most important is just actually saving money, as the post illustrates.

    Related: Trying to Keep up with the Jones – Earn more, spend more, want more – Living on Less – Saving for Retirement – How much have people saved?

  • Poor Customer Service: Discover Card

    I got my bill from Discover Card and Discover acts as though it is my problem that they have charged me for things I did not authorize. They then say the only way to be safe is to close this account and open a new one (a waste of my time). I would think it would be easy to not charge customers from fraudulent places but Discover seems to think this is beyond them. Once I was transferred to the fraud person (the 3rd person I had to speak to) they said they frequently saw fraud reports for this company and so it would most likely be fixed without a problem. They then said ok, we can setup a new account. I told them that I told the previous person if Discover didn’t fix this without closing the existing account I would take my business elsewhere so no new account was needed.

    What do I want from a credit card? I want to be able to use it to buy what I want. I want them to not charge me for things I don’t authorize. If I tell them I have been charged for something I didn’t order I want them to think that is a problem and fix it. I want good customer service which basically boils down to being able to reach them on the phone without wasting a bunch of my time and having the person that answers treat me like a valued customer they want to serve instead of acting as though I was bothering them. Their failure (charging me for things that I did not authorize) was wasting my time. Those are the important factors. Now if I can get a cash rebate too, great. Anyone have suggestions? Since I don’t carry a balance I don’t care what the interest rate is.

    It is fairly amazing how horrible the customer service is for credit cards given the huge profits the companies make. The main thing I want is one that treats my time as valuable and does everything it can to avoid wasting my time.

    Update (from the Washington Post today): Americans Can’t Do Without Their Credit Cards, But the Card Companies Are Another Matter

  • Farming Without Subsidies in New Zealand

    Unfortunately the developed world created policies of huge farm subsidies. We have commented on the bad economic practices before: Washington Paying Out Money it Doesn’t Have – More Government Waste – Pork Sugar – USA Sugar Industry Tax on Consumers. Here is an interesting article on the benefits New Zealand has enjoyed by eliminated that bad practice. Farming without subsidies? Some lessons from New Zealand:

    Removing subsidies, on the other hand, forces farmers and farm-related industries to become more efficient, to diversify, to follow and anticipate the market. It gives farmers more independence, and gains them more respect. It leaves more government money to pay for other types of social services, like education and health care.

    Related: New Zealand’s hardy farm spirit

  • The Widening “Marriage Gap” is Breeding Income Inequality

    The frayed knot

    And the divorce rate among college-educated women has plummeted. Of those who first tied the knot between 1975 and 1979, 29% were divorced within ten years. Among those who first married between 1990 and 1994, only 16.5% were.

    At the bottom of the education scale, the picture is reversed. Among high-school dropouts, the divorce rate rose from 38% for those who first married in 1975-79 to 46% for those who first married in 1990-94. Among those with a high school diploma but no college, it rose from 35% to 38%. And these figures are only part of the story. Many mothers avoid divorce by never marrying in the first place. The out-of-wedlock birth rate among women who drop out of high school is 15%. Among African-Americans, it is a staggering 67%.

    Does this matter? Kay Hymowitz of the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think-tank, says it does. In her book “Marriage and Caste in America”, she argues that the “marriage gap” is the chief source of the country’s notorious and widening inequality. Middle-class kids growing up with two biological parents are “socialised for success”. They do better in school, get better jobs and go on to create intact families of their own. Children of single parents or broken families do worse in school, get worse jobs and go on to have children out of wedlock.