Tags: economy

Goolsbee: Stop Playing ‘Chicken’ with Debt Ceiling

Published on: 01/02/2011
Categories: Current Events, Economics
Comments: No Comments

Editor’s Note: The fact that this guy thinks the US Government has any faith and credibility left to damage should deem him unsuitable for a position as important as the Chief of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers. Was he on vacation when the Fed announced that they would buy all the bonds nobody else wants???? The rest of the article is ‘recovery’ propaganda.

Austan Goolsbee, chairman of the U.S. Council of Economic Advisers, said if Congress fails to raise the debt ceiling, the “impact on the economy would be catastrophic.”

“I don’t see why anybody’s playing chicken with the debt ceiling,” Goolsbee said today on ABC’s “This Week” program. “If we get to the point where we damage the full faith and credit of the United States, that would be the first default in history caused purely by insanity.”

The government is slated to hit the legal limit on borrowing, $14.3 trillion, early this year. Congress must agree to raise that ceiling or the U.S. could be forced to default on its obligations.

After candidates supported by anti-deficit Tea Party activists were elected on pledges to rein in government spending, some lawmakers have said they would demand budget cuts in exchange for voting to raise the debt ceiling.

The U.S. has a $1.3 trillion federal budget deficit. President Barack Obama’s debt-reduction panel failed last month to agree on its chairmen’s recommendations for ways to reduce the annual deficit to about $400 billion in 2015.

The plan would have increased taxes by $1 trillion by 2020 by scaling back or eliminating hundreds of deductions, exclusions or credits such as those allowing homeowners to write off interest on their mortgage payments. It would also have cut individual and corporate income tax rates.

Seeking Common Ground

Goolsbee said he anticipates Obama will find common ground with Republicans on legislation to benefit the economy, citing investment incentives and tax cuts for workers and small businesses, and warned against cutting back on spending needed for economic growth.

“The reason the deficit is big this year is because we’re coming out of the worst recession since 1929,” Goolsbee said. “That’s the reason. The longer-run fiscal challenge facing the country is important.”

Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, said failing to raise the debt ceiling “would be very bad for the position of the United States in the world at large.” Still, he wouldn’t vote to raise it “until a plan is in place” to deal with debt, Graham said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

‘Continued Recovery’

Reaching an agreement with Republicans, Obama on Dec. 17 signed an $858 billion bill that extends for two years the Bush- era tax cuts for all income levels. It also continues expanded jobless insurance benefits to the long-term unemployed for 13 months and reduces payroll taxes for workers by two percentage points during 2011.

Goolsbee said the U.S. added 1.2 million private sector jobs in 2010 and cited forecasts for a “continued recovery.” The unemployment rate is currently 9.8 percent.

“You’re starting to see encouraging signs,” Goolsbee said. “And so, you know, we’ve just got to juice this, and pump it up, and get it going faster, but that’s clearly the direction that we’re headed.”

Payrolls Decrease in 28 States; Unemployment Rises in 21

Published on: 12/19/2010
Categories: Current Events, Economics
Comments: 1 Comment

Payrolls decreased in 28 U.S. states and the unemployment rate climbed in 21, showing most parts of the world’s largest economy took part in the November labor- market setback.

North Carolina led the nation with 12,500 job cuts last month, followed by Massachusetts with 8,600 dismissals, and Ohio with 7,800, figures from the Labor Department showed today in Washington. Joblessness increased most in Georgia and Idaho, while workers in Nevada faced the highest rate in the country at 14.3 percent.

The report is consistent with figures on Dec. 3 that showed unemployment increased last month for the first time since August. The Federal Reserve’s pledge to buy an additional $600 billion of Treasuries by June and the $858 billion bill passed by Congress extending all Bush-era tax cuts for two years may help boost growth and cut unemployment.

The report shows “an uneven distribution of improvement with some disappointing results,” said Russell Price, a senior economist at Ameriprise Financial Inc. in Detroit. “We’ve seen pretty clear evidence that demand is starting to improve and with the tax program that was passed last night it should further accelerate. That increased demand is going to pull forward further improvements in employment.”

Leading Index

Another report showed the economy is poised to pick up in 2011. The index of leading economic indicators increased 1.1 percent in November, the biggest gain in eight months, the New York-based Conference said today. The reading matched the median forecast of economists surveyed by Bloomberg News.

After Nevada, the jobless rate was highest in California and Michigan at 12.4 percent, today’s report from the Labor Department showed. Michigan, which is part of the so-called manufacturing Rust Belt, saw its unemployment rate drop by 0.4 percentage point, pushing it to the lowest level since February 2009, as the labor force shrank by 19,500 workers.

Yahoo! Inc., owner of the largest U.S. Web portal, is among companies still trimming payrolls. The firm is cutting about 600 jobs, or about 4 percent of its workforce, part of an almost two-year turnaround effort. The notification process began on Dec. 14 and most of the cuts will come from the product group, said Kim Rubey, a spokeswoman for Sunnyvale, California-based Yahoo.

Unemployment in North Dakota, the lowest in the U.S., was unchanged at 3.8 percent.

November Payrolls

The Labor Department’s Dec. 3 report showed payrolls increased by 39,000 in November, less than the most pessimistic forecast of economists surveyed at the time by Bloomberg News, and the jobless rate climbed to 9.8 percent, the highest since April.

State and local employment data are derived independently from the national statistics, which are typically released on the first Friday of every month. The state figures are subject to larger sampling errors because they come from smaller surveys, making the national figures more reliable, according to the government’s Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Today’s report showed Texas led states with the biggest payroll gains as employers added 19,100 workers. New Jersey was second with an increase of 10,000.

The jobless rate held at 9.2 percent in New Jersey, rose to 8.3 percent from 8.2 percent in New York, and fell to 9 percent from 9.1 percent in Connecticut.

Unemployment in Georgia climbed by 0.3 percentage point to 10.1 percent in November after having fallen in the previous two months. Idaho’s rate climbed by the same amount to 9.4 percent, just short of the almost three-decade high of 9.5 percent reached in February.

Backlash Builds Against Fed’s QE2

Published on: 11/04/2010
Comments: No Comments

The US Federal Reserve’s decision to pump an extra $600bn into the economy has galvanized emerging market central banks into preparing defensive measures and sparked criticism from leading global economies.

The Fed’s initiative, in response to rising concern about the weakness of the US economy, has fuelled fears of a sharp drop in the dollar and a fresh flood of capital inflows into emerging markets.

China, Brazil and Germany on Thursday criticised the Fed’s action a day earlier, and a string of east Asian central banks said they were preparing measures to defend their economies against large capital inflows.

Guido Mantega, the Brazilian finance minister who was the first to warn of a “currency war”, said: “Everybody wants the US economy to recover, but it does no good at all to just throw dollars from a helicopter.”

Mr Mantega added: “You have to combine that with fiscal policy. You have to stimulate consumption.” Germany also expressed concern.

An adviser to the Chinese central bank called unbridled printing of dollars the biggest risk to the global economy and said China should use currency policy and capital controls to cushion itself from external shocks.

“As long as the world exercises no restraint in issuing global currencies such as the dollar – and this is not easy – then the occurrence of another crisis is inevitable, as quite a few wise Westerners lament,” Xia Bin wrote in a newspaper under the Chinese central bank.

Korn Chatikavanij, Thailand’s finance minister, said the Thai central bank had told him it was “in close talks” with regional central banks over measures “to prevent excessive speculation.”

The renewed tension is likely to complicate US efforts to get leaders of the world’s leading economies countries meeting in Seoul next week to press China to sign up to a new accord promising to limit current account balances.

Dan Price, partner at the law firm Sidley Austin and formerly George W. Bush’s White House representative at the G20, said: “The US may find it increasingly difficult to galvanize countries to push China on [renminbi] appreciation when many think the Fed’s quantitative easing policy is itself a major contributor to currency misalignment and imbalances.”

Neither the Federal Reserve nor the US Treasury commented on Thursday. The tension over exchange rates has created fears of a wave of protectionist trade and investment actions in response, a reaction that so far has been markedly absent from the global economy during the recession and recovery.

The World Trade Organisation, in association with other international institutions, released a regular report which said that new restrictions on trade, direct investment and capital flows had remained subdued.

But blocks on trade imposed since 2008, such as “anti-dumping” duties on imports deemed to be unfairly priced, are largely still in place.

The WTO said that the percentage of G20 imports now covered by such restrictions had crept up to 1.8 per cent. Pascal Lamy, director-general, warned on Thursday that tensions over currency could be the issue which finally unleashed a real surge in protectionism.

The Fed’s initiative, however, boosted markets, with equities rising in Europe, London and the US following the lead set in Japan, where the Nikkei 225 Average gained 2.2 per cent – its best day in nearly two months.

“The no-asset-market-left-behind approach is officially endorsed,” said Steven Englander, at Citigroup. “If the intention is that US households and investors buy US assets, there is also little to stop them from buying foreign assets as well.”

Oil hit a six-month peak above $86 a barrel and gold rallied to $1,883.7, just shy of its all-time peak. The euro hit $1.428, its highest since January. Measured against its major trading partners, the dollar has fallen more than 3 per cent this week.

Treasuries, the actual target of the $600bn, endured the most mixed trading. Initially sold in disappointment that the Fed was not buying more, they began to rally as analysts digested the Fed’s plans, which will involve it buying more seven- to 10-year notes than the Treasury will actually sell. Yields on benchmark 10-year Treasuries were down 7.7 basis points at 2.49 per cent.

‘Broke’ UK to axe 500,000 Bureaucrats

Published on: 10/20/2010
Categories: Current Events, Economics
Comments: No Comments

Chancellor George Osborne is to slash welfare benefits by a further £7bn as he sets out the biggest spending cuts since World War Two.

The pension age will rise sooner than expected, some incapacity benefits will be time limited and other money clawed back through changes to tax credits and housing benefit.

A new bank levy will also be brought in – with full details due on Thursday.

Mr Osborne said the four year cuts were guided by fairness, reform and growth.

The 19% average cuts to departmental budgets were less severe than the 25% expected – thanks to bigger savings from the welfare budget, the chancellor told MPs.

He claimed this meant his plans were less than the 20% cuts Labour had planned ahead of the general election.

Unveiling his Spending Review in the Commons, which includes £81bn in spending cuts, he told MPs: “Today is the day when Britain steps back from the brink, when we confront the bills from a decade of debt.”

He added: “It is a hard road, but it leads to a better future.”

Universal benefits for pensioners will be retained exactly as budgeted for by the previous government and the temporary increase in the cold weather payment will be made permanent.

But a planned rise in state pension age for men and women to 66 by the year 2020, will be brought forward, with a gradual increase in the State Pension Age from 65 to 66, starting in 2018.

Up to 500,000 public sector jobs could go by 2014-15 due to the changes, according to the Office for Budgetary Responsibility.

Mr Osborne has not set out in detail where the jobs will go but he admitted there will be some redundancies in the public sector, which he said were unavoidable when the country had run out of money.

Bank levy

He has set out extensive cuts to individual government departments – including:

  • Home Office – 6% cuts, with police spending down by 4% each year of the spending settlement
  • Foreign Office – 24% cut through reduction in the number of Whitehall-based diplomats and back office costs
  • HM Revenue and Customs – 15% through the better use of new technology and greater efficiency

The Department for International Development’s budget will rise to £11.5bn over the next four years, reaching 0.7% of national income in 2013.

Each government department will next month publish a business plan setting out reform plans for the next four years.

Plans for a 1,500 place new prison have been dropped, he said.

The government will also deliver £6bn of Whitehall savings – double the £3bn promised earlier, said the chancellor.

There will be overall savings in funding to local councils of 7.1%, but ring-fencing of all local government revenue grants will end from April next year, except for simplified schools grants and a public health grant.

The Spending Review is the culmination of months of heated negotiations with ministers over their departmental budgets and comes a day after the Ministry of Defence and the BBC learned their financial fate.

‘Irresponsible gamble’

The MoD is facing cuts of 8% – less than most other departments but enough to mean 42,000 service personnel and civil servants will lose their jobs over the next five years and high-profile equipment such as Harrier jump jets, the Ark Royal aircraft carrier and Nimrod spy planes will be scrapped.

The BBC has been told it must freeze the licence fee for six years and take over the cost of the World Service, currently funded by the Foreign Office, and the Welsh language TV channel S4C. This adds up to an estimated 16% cut in the BBC’s budget in real terms.

The chancellor insists tough action on spending is needed to stave off a debt crisis – and that the private sector will create new jobs to fill the void.

Labour would also have had to make major cuts if it had won the general election, but the party insists Mr Osborne’s plans are too aggressive and risk tipping the country into a “double dip” recession. 

Labour leader Ed Miliband accused the chancellor of taking an “irresponsible gamble with our economy and, indeed, many of the frontline services people rely on.”

Health spending and international development will also be protected from cuts – and Mr Osborne has pledged funding for big infrastructure projects like London’s Crossrail project and the Mersey Gateway road bridge between Runcorn and Widnes.

But Energy Secretary Chris Huhne has confirmed a £30bn 10-mile barrage across the Severn estuary, intended to generate renewable electricity, has been axed on the grounds of cost.

What is your reaction to the cuts already announced? Will you be watching the chancellor’s statement? Send us your comments using the form below and if you are willing to be interviewed by the BBC, please leave a contact number. It will not be published.

Is the Wall Street Party Over?

Published on: 09/20/2010
Comments: No Comments

NY Times

Inside the great investment houses on Wall Street, business has taken a surprising turn — downward.

Even after taxpayer bailouts restored bankers’ profits and pay, the great Wall Street money machine is decelerating. Big financial institutions, including commercial banks, are still making a lot of money. But given unease in the financial markets and the economy, brokerages and investment banks are not making nearly as much as their executives, employees and investors had hoped.

After an unusually sharp slowdown in trading this summer, analysts are rethinking their profit forecasts for 2010.

The activities at the heart of what Wall Street does — selling and trading stocks and bonds, and advising on mergers — are running at levels well below where they were at this point last year, said Meredith Whitney, a bank analyst who was among the first to warn of the subprime mortgage disaster and its impact on big banks.

Worldwide, the number of stock offerings is down 15 percent from this time last year, while bond issuance is off 25 percent, according to Capital IQ, a research firm. Based on these trends, Ms. Whitney predicts that annual revenue from Wall Street’s main businesses will drop 25 percent, to around $42 billion in 2010, from $56 billion last year.

While the numbers will not be known until after the third quarter ends and financial companies begin reporting earnings in October, the pace of trading this summer was slow even by normal summer standards. Trading in shares listed on the New York Stock Exchange was down by 11 percent in July from 2009 levels, and August volume was off nearly 30 percent.

“What’s happened in the third quarter is that after a very slow summer, people expected things to come back,” said Ms. Whitney. “But they haven’t, and the inactivity is really squeezing everyone.”

The downward slide on Wall Street parallels a similar shift in the broader economy, which has slowed considerably since showing signs of a nascent recovery this spring. And if banks come under pressure, all but the safest borrowers may struggle to get loans.

With less than two weeks to go in the third quarter, companies will be hard-pressed to fulfill earlier, more optimistic expectations.

“It’s like the marathon: if you’re five miles behind, you can’t make that up in the last 10 minutes of the race,” said David H. Ellison, president of FBR Fund Advisers, a money management firm that specializes in financial companies. Many banks are barely scraping by in traditional Wall Street business.

As a result, executives, portfolio managers and analysts say that even the mighty Goldman Sachs, which posted a profit every day for the first three months of the year, is unlikely to deliver the kind of profit growth that investors have come to expect.

Keith Horowitz, a bank analyst at Citigroup, said he expected Goldman Sachs to earn $7.8 billion in 2010, a 35 percent decline from the $12.1 billion it made last year.

The drop in trading translates into lower commissions for brokerage firms, as well as a weaker environment for underwriting initial public offerings and other stock issues, traditionally a highly lucrative niche.

Banks are also scaling back on making bets with their own money — known as proprietary trading — another huge profit source in recent years that will soon be forbidden under terms of the financial reform legislation passed by Congress this summer.

Indeed, analysts have finally started to bring their forecasts in line with the new reality. On Sept. 12, Mr. Horowitz reduced his estimates for third-quarter profits at Goldman and Morgan Stanley.

Mr. Horowitz had predicted Goldman would make $1.75 billion in the third quarter, or $3 a share; he now expects Goldman’s profit to total $1.34 billion, or $2.30 a share. For Morgan Stanley, his revision was even steeper, with earnings expectations revised downward to $140 million, or 10 cents a share, from $726 million, or 53 cents a share.

Mr. Horowitz’s estimates are considerably lower than the consensus among analysts who track the two companies. If the other analysts revise their estimates closer to his, they would put pressure on the shares.

One of the rare bright spots for Wall Street recently has been the issuance of junk bonds, as ultra-low interest rates encourage investors to seek out riskier debt that carries a higher yield. But that will not be enough to offset the weakness elsewhere, said one top Wall Street executive who insisted on anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly for his company, and because final numbers would not be tallied until the end of the month.

To make matters worse, he said, many Wall Street firms increased their work forces in the first half of the year, before the mood shifted and worries of a double-dip recession arose. If activity remains anemic, firms could soon begin cutting jobs again.

“I think the summer was horrible for everyone, and no one expected it to be as bad as it was,” he said. “It’s coming back a little bit in September but nowhere near enough to make up for what happened in July and August.”

The profit picture is brighter for diversified companies like JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America, which have larger commercial and retail banking operations in addition to their Wall Street units, but some analysts say earnings expectations for them could come down as well.

“Estimates still seem a little high, and the revenue story for all the banks is not a good one,” said Ed Najarian, who tracks the banking sector for ISI, a New York research firm.

With interest rates plunging, banks are making less off their interest-earning assets like government bonds and other ultra-safe securities. At the same time, demand for new loans remains weak.

One wild card will be the credit card portfolios at major banks like JPMorgan, Bank of America and Citigroup. As delinquencies ease, Mr. Najarian said, credit losses are likely to decline. That trend helped earnings at JPMorgan in the second quarter, and could be crucial again in the third quarter.

Ms. Whitney says the gloomy short-term predictions foreshadow a series of lean years in the broader financial services industry.

Indeed, she said the Street faced a “resizing” not seen since the cutbacks that followed the bursting of the dot-com bubble a decade ago.

“We expect compensation to be down dramatically this year,” she wrote in a recent report. She predicts the American banking industry will lay off 40,000 to 80,000 employees, or as many as 1 in 10 of its workers.

That may be extreme, but Ms. Whitney argues that the boom years are not coming back anytime soon. As both consumers and companies cut back on debt, and financial reform rules put the brakes on profitable niches like derivatives and proprietary trading, the engines of earnings growth for the last decade will continue to sputter.

Meet the New Goldilocks

Back in the glory days of 2008, the mainstream press, political pundits, and various government officials talked about the idea of the Goldilocks economy. Not too hot, not too cold, but just right. Of course the analogy ended when the bears chased Goldilocks out of the cottage. While the same outlets aren’t trotting out the fairy tale this time around, it is clear that the US has hit phase two of the Goldilocks economy and it is my guess that most folks will like this one even less than the first.

And again, there are three major bears that are threatening to once again drive Goldilocks deep into the forest.

Bear #1 – A Jobless Economy

Month after month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics releases Employment Situation reports that continue to befuddle even the most casual of observers. They have become Newspeak in the truest sense of the word. Take last Friday’s report for example.

BLS reported that 54,000 jobs had been lost in August. The media immediately jumped on the fact that private sector payrolls were up by 67,000 and immediately blamed the entirety of the negative report on the fact that it was only bad because some census workers got laid off. Talk about having your cake and eating it too. Back in the spring when the census workers were being hired, it was the same press that counted those temporary jobs as if they were actually created by a recovering economy.

U6 Underutilization Aggregate

But it actually goes a lot deeper than just the 67,000 jobs gained in the private sector. Let’s analyze:

331,000 people became underemployed for economic reasons, meaning that they desired full time work, but were only able to find part time work. 331,000 full-time jobs lost. That takes out total up to 385,000. Left completely uncounted are those folks who lost one full time jobs and managed to find another, but at a much lower wage.

BLS’ CESBD Birth/Death adjustment assumed that 115,000 full-time jobs were created by new businesses in August. This ‘adjustment’ has been a source of great consternation by labor market analysts and real economists for some time now. In what turned out to be a vain attempt at getting a look at the methodology used to derive this number, I contacted BLS and had email communications with no less than a half dozen staff economists in its Continuing Employment Statistics group. Not a single one of them could or would give me any information on how this metric was arrived at other than to point me to the website. At this point, we are left to assume that the Birth/Death adjustment is probably more arbitrary than anything based in reality. So for argument’s sake, let’s back out half of those fictitious jobs. Our total is now at 442,500 full-time jobs lost.

CESDB Adjustments for 2010

Finally, in order to keep pace with demographics, the economy needs to create 150,000 full-time jobs each month just to break even. Creating that many will not result in a reduction in unemployment but is the working equivalent of treading water.

Taking all this into account, August saw a deficit of 592,500 full-time jobs. And this was carried as a ‘good’ report? Former Labor Secy. Robert Reich actually came out and declared the report in its totality to be ‘awful’.

Keep in mind that the mediocre (at best) and lately awful jobs reports are after nearly a trillion dollars in direct stimulus and over another trillion in palliatives by the Fed in the form of purchasing mortgage-backed securities to stimulate the housing/construction sector. This reality alone should serve to underscore how dire the situation is. Unfortunately, this will likely be the status quo moving forward. Meet the new Goldilocks.

Bear #2 – An Unending Bear Market

It has been a cruel twist that the bear market which has been firmly in place since 2007 came precisely as the baby boomers began having serious thoughts about retirement. There have been countless stories of folks who retired in late 2007 or early 2008, either by choice or because they lost jobs and decided to retire, then had their portfolios halved over the next 18 months.

Sure the markets have recovered somewhat, but so many individual investors bailed out at Dow 8000 to 6500 and never got back in for the upswing. This market certainly has many folks perplexed. This is one of the reasons we have focused nearly exclusively on income producing investments, opting to lock in returns in the present rather than gambling on an uncertain future.

What many still have not realized is that the investing paradigm changed in a big way back in the year 2000. Stocks had seen an 18 year Supercycle of solid gains. One could quite literally pin the Sunday business section up on a wall, throw darts blindfolded and have a better than average chance of picking a winning portfolio. Precious metals languished for nearly two decades. That all changed in 2000 and as we entered a new century, we entered a new paradigm. Gold has surged fourfold and change and stocks have gone absolutely nowhere.

10-Year Gold Chart

These Supercycles are generally 16, 18, or 20 years, so at a minimum, the current paradigm has another 6 years to go. Given all the distress in the economy from both a macro and fiscal perspective, it is entirely possible that we’re only halfway through this cycle. That means another 6-10 years of the stock market bear and another 6-10 years of strength in precious metals. At least in this case, there is a silver lining – pun intended.

Bear #3 – Leverage in All the Wrong Places

Perhaps the most ferocious of all the bears set to battle this new, unimproved Goldilocks is leverage or lack thereof. We have heard plenty about the leverage in the banking system and how it has been used to enhance bank and brokerage profits over the past few years. We’ve also talked plenty about how leverage has helped destroy the consumer, which is absolutely true. What is not being talked about, however, is the lack of leverage that we have as a nation in terms of righting the ship.

There have been many calls for the US to reassert itself as the premier manufacturing nation in the world. This would serve the dual purpose of diminishing our reliance on foreign goods as well as helping the unemployment situation by bringing jobs home. While I am a huge advocate of doing exactly this, there are several major problems that need to be dealt with along the way should we as a nation decide to pursue this path.

2010 Trade Deficit

First and foremost is the fact that many American goods are not price competitive with their foreign counterparts simply because of the cost of labor. Placing tariffs on imported goods is an obvious solution proposed by many, but keep in mind the role that just the Chinese have played in keeping our economy afloat over the past decade in particular through vendor financing – the purchase of US debt.

Secondly, shifting manufacturing back to the US would require the rebuilding of the manufacturing infrastructure including the railroads and likely the power distribution grids in many areas as well. This is a huge capital investment and isn’t even on the radar of most policymakers. The mindset isn’t there at this time. For the most part we are content to convert old railways into biking paths instead of trying to figure out how to revive them.

A third area where the US lacks the leverage to reassert herself is in the area of energy. With peak oil on the immediate horizon, we are doing precious little other than burning a lot of corn to prepare for yet another paradigm shift. As long as we’re dependent on foreigners for one of the most important staples of economic growth, we will not be able to affect meaningful changes.

There are other areas as well, but I think the point has been made. A stagnant labor market, lack of individual wealth growth, and a lack of economic and tactical leverage to change key areas are conspiring to create this new Goldilocks economy which will plod along as long as trillions of new dollars are pumped in on a regular basis. Can anyone say unsustainable?

Next week we’ll finish up our analysis of proposed new gasoline taxes from a partial equilibrium perspective.

Andy Sutton Interviewed at yourcontrarian.com

Andy Sutton & Chris Wilson from yourcontrarian.com discuss the markets, the broader economy, and where things are headed over the coming weeks and months. Don’t miss this informative session! Listen Here

Uncle Sam Tops the Goods-Producing Sector

Published on: 01/07/2010
Categories: Uncategorized
Comments: No Comments

Yes, you read it right. I’ve been railing on this point for years now. We’ve needed to rebuild our crumbling manufacturing and goods-producing sector, yet it is Big Government who is doing all the hiring. So much so that there are now more people working for Big Government than there are in all goods-producing industries – COMBINED.

What does this mean? It means more reliance on foreigners for everything from food to fuel, to consumer trinkets. It means larger trade deficits (since you can’t export government – although it would really be nice to export the whole doggone thing right now!), and further pressure on the US Dollar.

Stimulus Nation

Published on: 10/30/2009
Comments: No Comments

The result really wasn’t all that surprising. The reaction wasn’t either. On Thursday morning the Commerce Department released its advance GDP reading and proclaimed the end of the recession by asserting the American economy ‘grew’ at an annualized rate of 3.5% in the third quarter. A previous commentary already pointed out the fact that government borrowing shouldn’t be counted in GDP calculations anyway, so I’ll not repeat that exercise. Certainly there isn’t much to say on this topic that hasn’t already been said. However, there are some salient points that have been glossed over that are worth mentioning.

Cost vs. Price

It would probably be rather hard to find a single American that didn’t know the price tag of the stimulus bill. $787 billion has been included in nearly every news piece regarding the topic. What most people are not aware of, however, is that $787 billion only represents that amount of money actually put into the economy by the feds. It comes nowhere near addressing the actual cost of the program. A good recent example of this miracle of government accounting is the Medicare part D prescription benefit program. The price tag was $394 billion, but the cost is much higher – around $8.7 trillion and counting depending on which numbers you want to use. Granted this represents the net present value of the cost of these ongoing benefits over a 75-year period, but you get the idea.

Fortunately for taxpayers, the stimulus package is not an ongoing expenditure (yet), and as such consists of predefined outlays. Despite this, the total cost of the bill as compiled by the Congressional Budget Office is approximately $3.27 trillion. Amazing in this is the fact that we’ll pay nearly as much for debt service on the stimulus bill ($744 billion) as the measure was supposed to provide to the economy! Talk about sticker shock. The gory details are here.

The question now becomes one of return on investment. What exactly are we going to get for our $3.27 trillion? It had better be good too, because nearly all of it is borrowed from someone – either foreigners or the Fed. Unfortunately, such is not the case. Using the $3.27 trillion projected cost, the ROI for the stimulus bill stands at a whopping -415%. In the private sector, such a revelation would result in a project being killed instantly in the concept phase. Not so in the hallowed halls of Congress where the laws of economics and common sense do not apply.

A Good Deal for Taxpayers?

We have been assured in almost doublespeak fashion that the stimulus bill was necessary, and was in fact, a good deal for the American taxpayer and would create or save millions of jobs.

The ballyhooed cash for clunkers program deemed such a success ended up costing taxpayers around $24,000 for every car sold under the program. This when the actual benefit to the buyer was only $4,500. Some other examples, courtesy of AP, include:

- A company working with the Federal Communications Commission reported that stimulus money paid for 4,231 jobs, when about 1,000 were produced.

- A Georgia community college reported creating 280 jobs with recovery money, but none was created from stimulus spending.

- A Florida childcare center said its stimulus money saved 129 jobs but used the money on raises for existing employees.

One disconcerting admission in the past week came from Christine Romer, the head of the Council of Economic Advisors. She stated that the largest impact from the stimulus had already been felt and that moving forward, the stimulus would only serve to prevent the economy from slipping further rather than contributing to any growth. Sounds like a recovery eh? It would sound as if Ms. Romer is already laying the groundwork for the next brainchild of economic ignorance: Stimulus – The Sequel. Here are her quotes:

“By mid-2010,” she said, “fiscal stimulus will likely be contributing little to further growth.”

“While job losses will likely end early next year, robust job gains may still be several quarters away,”

“This is not a normal recovery, Coming out of this, we’ve got lots of things working against us.”

Like the laws of economics for starters?

What also must be noted is that the federal deficit alone for FY 2009, which doesn’t included net present value of unfunded liabilities, was $1.4 trillion. The fact that such a large sum of money had to be spent to prevent an all-out collapse of the US economy should be alarming to anyone with a pulse. The fact that current projections are for $1 trillion plus deficits annually for the next ten years should curl your eyebrows.

Let’s assume for a minute that Ms. Romer is correct and that we’ve seen all the bounce we’re going to get from the stimulus. According to AP, the number of jobs created directly by stimulus spending was around 25,000. Sure, there are probably some others that slipped through the cracks and it is very likely that some firms held off on layoffs because of the temporary burst of cash. But lets look at the cost of those jobs JUST in terms of the debt service created by the stimulus bill. Each of the 25,000 jobs created cost the taxpayer $29,600,000 in debt service alone.

Keep in mind that unemployment has been going up constantly during the time when we were getting the maximum ‘benefits’ from the stimulus. As soon as the money wears off, firms will fall back on their original plans, which include cutting back on staff. Another stimulus package will be needed – and soon – to stave off the infamous double dip that many economists and commentators have long been forecasting. The proverb that a house built on a rock will weather any storm, but one built on sand will certainly collapse rings very true in our current state of affairs.

The real question that needs to be posed to anyone supporting additional foolish stimulus needs to focus on an exit strategy. How will additional stimulus create a foundation for fundamental, healthy economic growth? The short answer is that it won’t, but lets make them answer anyway.

Portfolio Diversification & Risk

The cliché’s are plentiful and well known. Putting all of one’s eggs in a single basket is probably the most popular example. One of the biggest manifestations is when an investor looks at their portfolio and realizes that it is grossly underperforming a particular market index or that the same portfolio has performed much worse than a given benchmark. Even if you’ve done everything right and selected the right themes, industries, and firms, if you get the portfolio mix wrong, you can still have problems. This is one of headaches that mutual funds are generally supposed to relieve investors of, but for a litany of reasons, it doesn’t seem to always work out that way. In truth, every individual portfolio is a mutual fund of sorts, and so the same rules apply.

Types of Risk

In general, there are two broad types of risk: systematic (non-diversifiable) and non-systematic (diversifiable). Keep in mind that what we are discussing here is slightly different from geopolitical risk, currency risk, interest rate risk, etc although each of those specific types of risk do contribute to the overall riskiness of a particular stock and as such cannot just be ignored.

The data in the chart below is from a 1987 study on diversification just after the market crashed. Obviously, at that time, diversification was a hot topic as investors scrambled to adjust portfolios and recoup the losses. The data below lists the number of components, the standard deviation of annual returns for each portfolio, and a comparison of the standard deviation of the portfolio to that of a single component.

Number of Components in the Model Portfolio Average Std. Deviation of Annual Portfolio Returns (%) Ratio of Portfolio Std. Dev. to Std. Dev. of a Single Component

Number of Components in the Model Portfolio
Average Std. Deviation of Annual Portfolio Returns (%)
Ratio of Portfolio Std. Dev. to Std. Dev. of a Single Component
1 49.24 1.00
2 37.36 .76
4 29.69 .60
6 26.64 .54
8 24.98 .51
10 23.93 .49
20 21.68 .44
30 20.87 .42
40 20.46 .42
50 20.20 .41
100 19.69 .40
200 19.42 .39
300 19.34 .39
400 19.29 .39
500 19.27 .39
1000 19.21 .39

Below is a graphic representation of the data in the chart above. It may clearly be observed that standard deviation of the portfolio is asymptotic (law of diminishing returns) as it relates to eliminating the systematic (diversifiable) risk. In fact, once the number of portfolio assets surpasses 30, the standard deviation does not drop appreciably, even when another 970 components are added! Obviously, this reality enforces that quality is better than quantity.

Think of the case of the individual investor who buys 100 stocks thinking he is diversifying away all his risk. He has borne a significant opportunity cost in the form of commissions without purchasing much in the way of additional protection from non-systematic risk. The upper portion of the chart deals with non-systematic risk, which can be largely diversified away. Notice though that even when the portfolio contains 1000 components that the standard deviation is still 19.21%. That constitutes the systematic risk.

Systematic vs. Non-Systematic Risk

A good example of systematic risk is pure market risk. Obviously if the capital markets crash again as they did in 2008, it will be exceedingly difficult to put together a basket of stocks that will withstand such a downward draft. There are other types of risk such as geopolitical, currency, inflation, interest rate, industry, and geographic. By using a crosscut approach to diversification, one is able to not only mitigate much of the non-systematic risk, but a good portion of the systematic risk as well. This is accomplished by looking at your themes selected several weeks ago, then addressing each type of systematic risk in your selection of assets. This approach is one of the main reason that our Centsible Investor Model Portfolio has done so well while the broad markets have languished.

Beta (ß)

Quantitatively, Beta is the generally accepted measure of systematic risk for a stock and is defined as the amount of systematic risk present in a particular risky asset relative to that in an average risky asset. Essentially what Beta does is compares a particular stock in this case with an average stock, or more accurately, a benchmark basket of stocks:

Beta

where ra measures the return of the asset, rp measures the return of a portfolio of risky assets (often the stocks in an index), and Cov(ra,rp) is the covariance of the returns.

Interpreting Beta is rather simple. 1.0 is the Rubicon so to speak. Betas lower than 1.0 indicate that the stock in question has a lower level of systematic risk than the ‘market’ while a Beta of greater than 1.0 indicates a stock that has a greater level of systematic risk than the ‘market’.

Knowing this, it becomes a rather simple matter to calculate the Beta of your portfolio simply by ascertaining the weight of each component and then multiplying it by that component’s Beta. Let’s use a hypothetical example where we have a 3 stock portfolio; Stock A is 25% of the portfolio, Stock B is 40% of the portfolio, and Stock C is 35% of the portfolio. The Beta of Stock A is .75, Stock B is .50, and Stock C is 1.25:

Betaportfolio= .75(.25) + .50(.40) + 1.25(.35)

Betaportfolio = .83

This calculation indicates that this 3 stock portfolio has systematic risk that is lower than that of the market, however, its non-systematic risk would be considerably higher than one would desire since there are only 3 components. All else being equal, the ideal would be to find a portfolio of perhaps 25-30 stocks that has a Betaportfolio of .83, as this would mitigate much of the non-systematic risk as well.

Beta and the Risk Premium

While using the term risk-free in today’s financial and economic climate might result in a shower of protest, the concept of the risk-free asset has an important place in the discussion of risk vs. reward, particularly when selecting portfolio assets.

Let’s use an example of a stock with an expected return of 20% and a Beta of 1.6. Let us also assume (entirely for illustrative purposes) that the risk-free asset has a return of 8%, with a Beta of zero since it has neither systematic nor non-systematic risk. In the case of expected return, we are relying on an educated guess, but in the case of stocks that pay dividends, one could easily plug the dividend yield into the expected return as well. When we plot out our stock and the risk-free rate and generate a Security Market Line (SML), we get the following:

SML - Single Stock

The chart above is relatively easy to interpret; we consider the ‘risk-free’ asset Rf with its corresponding Beta of zero and return of 8% and our stock with its Beta of 1.6 and its expected return E(RA) of 20%. When we connect the dots and measure the slope of the line (rise/run), we get a slope of 7.5%. From this graph, we can ascertain that our stock has a reward to risk ratio of 7.5% meaning that our stock has a risk premium of 7.5% for each ‘unit’ of systematic risk. Obviously, the higher the reward to risk ratio, the better, meaning we’d want to see higher E(RA) and/or lower Beta; either of which would increase the slope.

In a final example, let us now compare our stock in the previous example (called Stock A) with a second stock (Stock B). Stock B has a Beta of 1.2 and an expected return E(RB) of 16%. When we construct our Security Market Line, we end up with a slightly different picture than we had with Stock A.

The reward to risk ratio (or slope of the line) for Stock B is 6.67%.

SML Comparison

What this tells us (all other things equal) is that in essence, Stock A is a ‘better’ choice than Stock B simply because it generates more reward for each unit of systematic risk undertaken.

This analysis is especially useful when one is selecting portfolio components and wants exposure to a particular industry or sector, has multiple candidates, but doesn’t want to include them all for fear of being overweight that particular area. In this manner, the candidates may be lined up and compared to see both visually and quantitatively where the best bang for the buck lies.

Of all the areas discussed in our sample exercise over the past few weeks, diversification and risk are the two areas where investors are most likely to stumble. Many fail to properly diversify because they don’t understand the value of it or because they don’t have enough capital to diversify by purchasing individual stocks and should look to ETFs, open-end or closed-end funds as an alternative.

While the analysis above was primarily for stocks, those investors seeking to hedge their portfolios with precious metals can certainly plug their favorite shiny coins into this analysis. For those so inclined, Betas may be hand/Excel-calculated for commodities using the major indexes, or commodity indexes, such as the CRB as the ‘market’ portion of the calculation.

In summation, probably the most important takeaway from this article should be that a portfolio doesn’t need 100 components to be adequately diversified in terms of non-systematic risk. 30-40 will do just fine. A second important point is that by using your economic themes and how they relate to systematic risks in your selection of an appropriate number of assets, you can mitigate a good deal of the systematic risk to your portfolio as well.

« page 2 of 6 »

Welcome , today is Sunday, 02/05/2012