Investing Curiouscatblog

Tag: Financial Literacy

  • Paying Back Direct Cash from Taxpayers Does not Excuse Bank Misdeeds

    Many people are ignoring huge costs (to the economy) and benefits (to those financial companies that ruined so many people’s lives and severely damaged the economy. Paying back money the government paid you is not that same as being innocent. While several of the too big to fail banks have paid back the direct cash they were given that is not an indication they are now off the hook for their disastrous behavior.

    First we know that much of the money “sent to AIG” just went directly to Goldman Sachs and others. Those big banks had taken risks and the only way those risks paid off was with billions from taxpayers. Without that they would have been bankrupt. And then when they paid the money they received directly they still haven’t paid back the billions they got from taxpayers (via AIG). And this money was paid back at 100 cents on the dollar though those instruments were trading for much less in the market (the government certainly would have found a less costly solution but for ignorance or a desire to reward their former company and friends at Goldman Sachs.

    Second, rates have been kept artificially low, to among other things, allow the big banks to make tens of billions (and costing savers tens of billions). Those savers have not been reimbursed for the losses caused by the big banks.

    And third if I gamble with money from my company and win my bet on the Super Bowl and then put the money back, I am still not innocent. Just because many of the big banks have paid back the money they were given directly by taxpayers does not mean they didn’t get huge benefits from the government. Pretending they are not bad guys because after ruining the economy, costing millions of people their jobs and savings, getting many benefits from the government, they then pay back the direct cash payments is not accurate.

    Response to: The New Bank Tax

    Related: Elizabeth Warren Webcast On Failure to Fix the System – The Best Way to Rob a Bank is as An Executive at One – Failure to Regulate Financial Markets Leads to Predictable Consequences – Jim Rogers on the Financial Market Mess – Congress Eases Bank Laws (1999)

  • “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

  • 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…)

  • 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

  • Investments of Nobel Prize Economists

    3 Nobel prize winning economists, Robert C. Merton, Robert Solow and Paul Samuelson, took questions about the impending retirement savings crisis from PBS NewsHour correspondent Paul Solman in October 2008. Paul Solman asked them about their personal portfolios in the clip shown above.

    Robert Merton tells his portfolio portfolio is in a Global Index Fund, Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities, and one hedge fund. He said he had been invested in a TIAA commercial real estate fund until recently, but sold in early 2008 when he worried commercial real estate prices had increased too far. He also sold out his Municipal bond holdings.

    Robert Solow says he has no idea of his portfolio.

    Paul Samuelson declined to say. He did offer that timing is not something investors can successfully do. He stated that timing the selling of assets was not as difficult as timing when to get back in. And that markets move very quickly so you can miss out on big gains. 2009 provided a great example of this. Many people sold stocks in late 2008 and early 2009. And most did not get back in. In 2009 the S&P 500 was up 26%.

    Related: Retirement Savings Allocation for 2010 – How Much Will I Need to Save for Retirement? – Gen X Retirement – Many Retirees Face Prospect of Outliving Savings

  • 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

  • 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…)

  • 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

  • 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?