Saturday 31 December 2011

Happy New Year

Bad policies are not enough to derail the most powerful economic engine the world has ever seen -- the US economy.

Here is where we are headed in 2012:

Higher stocks prices, lower bond prices.

A slowly expanding economy -- roughly 2 percent. Because of the way GDP is measured, the reported numbers will bounce around, but should average about 2 percent for 2012 as a whole.

China will stumble but recover. Bad government policy will be overcome by the hard work and entrepreneurial spirit of ordinary Chinese. China will continue to be on a roll.

Europe will sink further into the abyss. The failure to rationalize sovereign debt problems (meaning the failure to begin some managed default process) will mean negative economic growth in Europe for 2012. At the end of the day, it will turn out that Europe is less important than everyone thinks. Except for very isolated situations, Europe as an economic entity has been moribund for a generation. That situation will only become more obvious in 2012.

Emerging markets will plod along, but if you own emerging market stocks, you'll wish you had bet on the US market by year end (same as 2011).

Growing disparities in the Western economies between the haves and the have nots. But, not what you think. The "haves" in the Western economies are those with "protected" jobs -- public employees, teachers especially, people that work for Universities, heavily regulated industries,companies that are basically the government (Fannie, Freddie, etc.), and elected politicians.

The have-nots in the Western world are those in the bottom half of the income spectrum -- the aged, the young and poorly educated, the minorities. These folks are going to see their situation deteriorate more in 2012, mostly because of the impact of government policies that have built up over the past fifty years.

Inflation will begin to be significantly more visible in 2012, but runaway problems are still a couple of years or more down the road. It will feel good in 2012, but the seeds of future problems will be evident.

So, 2012 will be a plus year and will feel better for the "haves" than 2011.

Friday 30 December 2011

Another Economist Off The Rails

Laura d'Andrea Tyson has now joined the chorus of academic economists spouting economic nonsense. (Although Tyson is more a politico and a professional board sitter these days and is definitely one of the 1%).

Tyson has a piece in today's NYTimes attacking the Wyden-Ryan proposal to reform medicare that would move medicare more into the free market. Tyson notes that the cost of medicare, in the past ten years (and especially in the last three years) has grown more slowly than private insurance. That is an absurd comparison.

Medicare grows by whatever it's budget is and that's that. Private insurance is beset by changes in state legislation (and virtually every state has dramatically altered it's health insurance rules making them more expensive by mandate) in the past ten years. Tyson also seems relatively unconcerned that medicare has a $ 66 Trillion unfunded liability into the future while private insurance has a zero unfunded liability into the future.

Tyson's argument is like saying if I buy now, pay later, then the cost is zero.

Reading Tyson's piece in today's NYTimes is one more trip down the anti-capitalism roadway that so many "star" economists seem to have taken. Economics to these folks is more about have the right politics than about economic logic and economic facts.

Before medicare came into existence, health care was cheap and plentiful and health insurance cost almost nothing. Go back and read newspapers and articles about health care in the world pre-1964 and you will find that health care was a backburner issue. Health care did not become a major problem until the last thirty years and most of our problems with health care provision have to do with too much government, not too little.

The free market is the best way to allocate a scarce resource. Subsidies for the less affluent are a humane way to deal with poverty and low income families. Entitlements for Warren Buffett and Bill Gates are a prescription for disaster and result in a $ 66 Trillion unfunded liability. Where are economists when we really need them?

Thursday 29 December 2011

Gold and Investment

Most thoughtful observers realize that the US and the major Western economies are going to have significant inflation at some point. It is unlikely that politicians will ever deal forthrightly with the entitlement issues and the only thing left is to monetize the debt -- print money -- and hope that rampant inflation will destroy the value of the outstanding sovereign debt. An interesting future.

The conclusion that some draw is that gold (and perhaps other precious metals) should thrive in a world of out-of-control inflation and the absence of a safe haven asset. It is an appealing idea and gold has done well in recent years, until recent months.

But, how do you value gold? or silver? Normally things have some alternative use. But the prices of gold and silver are way beyond any alternative use value. Gold could trade anywhere -- up or down. There is no way of establishing a value for gold.

Should gold be a part of a diversified portfolio? No. But gold mining companies should.

Which brings us to the Hedge Fund industry in 2011. The hedge fund industry has stubbed it's toe big time by holding outsize positions in gold and in gold stocks. Why? What "expertise" that is worth paying money for leads a hedge fund to take a huge long position in gold? What are the analytics? Is it simply that Europe is imploding and the US is next? Is that it?

Is their some serious analytics behind the huge gold positions taken by hedge funds in 2011 or is this simply the herd instinct speculating in something with a bubble-like recent history?

Wednesday 28 December 2011

Professor Cochrane and Dodd-Frank

Professor John Cochrane of the University of Chicago opines today on the implementation of "too big to fail" in the Dodd-Frank legislation in the Wall Street Journal. As Professor Cochrane notes, the Dodd-Frank structure has nothing to do with the problems that beset the financial industry in the 2008 collapse but instead empowers arbitrary control of the US financial institutions by an unelected bureaucracy, accountable to no one.

Cochrane, correctly, redirects our attention to the stifling impact the Dodd-Frank "reforms" are having on our financial system and, as a result, on our economy. Economic stagnation by design. That's the Dodd-Frank regime.

The spirit of Dodd-Frank has breathed life into an anti-lending campaign by bank regulators the past two years. The result -- a bifurcation in the lending market. For those who don't need credit, it is available in abundance. For those who need credit, it is prohibited by the activities of the regulators. Obama could change this, but he chooses not to.

The time to tighten lending standards is during the boom, not during the bust. Tightening lightening standards during the bust just prolongs the bust. Why isn't that obvious?

Tuesday 27 December 2011

The new financial literacy seminar series

As December comes to an end, I am thinking of some initiatives undertaken this year. One stands out, as it is rather recent and it is in the process of being evaluated to make it even better: our Financial Literacy Seminar Series. Started last October, this is a joint project between the George Washington University School of Business and the Federal Reserve Board (FRB) with the goal of hosting cutting edge research on financial literacy. We invited all individuals and institutions interested in financial literacy in the Washington, DC, area, and because presentations have been taped and posted on the web, everybody who is interested in financial literacy can watch the presentations or read the papers. They are posted on the seminar’s web page: http://business.gwu.edu/flss/.

We had a distinguished group of speakers in the fall term. Our inaugural seminar was given by Olivia Mitchell from the Wharton School, whose talk examined the link between financial literacy and wealth accumulation. Her talk was followed by a panel of policy experts, including Gail Hillebrand from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Karen Dynan from Brookings, and Jason Fichtner from George Mason University (formerly the Deputy Commissioner of SSA). In subsequent seminars, Robert Clark from North Carolina State University presented his work on workplace financial education, a very important topic when looking at financial education for the adult population; Stephan Meier from Columbia Business School examined the link between financial literacy and subprime mortgages, showing that numerical ability is strongly associated with mortgage delinquency and default; Bilal Zia from the World Bank presented an evaluation of financial literacy programs in India; and Jonathan Zinman from Dartmouth College examined household debt and, in particular, credit card debt and the way it could be managed better. Our last speaker was Brigitte Madrian from Harvard University. She reported on some important features of default options, i.e., the fact that when employees are automatically enrolled into pensions, many of them stay enrolled at the default rate, even when that rate is a “bad” one and unlikely to correspond to a rate that the individual would have chosen had he/she made an active choice. Most importantly, the employees who tend to stick to the default are disproportionately those with low income, which is often a proxy for low financial literacy.

Different seminars in the series had different formats. While the majority of talks were given by academics, at times we had a discussant or, as mentioned above, a panel of policy experts. Even without a discussant, our audience had so many experts in this field that there always was a very lively discussion with many questions asked of the speaker. To continue the discussion in a less formal setting, we held a reception after the seminar so that participants could continue the discussion with either the presenter or other attendees (sometimes with the help of a glass of Italian wine). The Dean of the Business School would also stop by the reception to greet the speaker or meet the attendees and to hear how the School could continue to promote financial literacy.

One of the privileges of organizing the seminar series is that I get to meet with the seminar speakers, discuss their paper in depth, hear in more detail their views and their insights as well as learn about their future projects. Another equally important privilege was getting to know and work with a group of researchers from the Federal Reserve Board. They have been a great group to work with: they combine an interest in theoretical and empirical research with a focus on policy; they ask important questions and have very high standards for research. Together, we were unstoppable; we started to work on the series in August and in October we were ready to start.

And speaking of privileges, last June, I had the opportunity to meet with Chairman Bernanke. Sitting in his elegant office at the FRB, I told him about the projects that our teams at the Financial Literacy Center (FLC) were working on and what we were doing to promote financial literacy. He proposed more interaction between the researchers working on financial literacy and the researchers from the Federal Reserve Board and suggested organizing some joint activities. As a result, the Financial Literacy Seminar Series was born, and it benefits from the financial support of the Federal Reserve Board. Because the end of the year is a time for evaluation, I have to say I am very proud of our new Financial Literacy Seminar Series. And I am especially proud of being a student of Ben Bernanke.

More Goofball Economics

Today's NY Times has yet another economist in action. Nancy Folbre, whose byline in today's blog puts her at University of Massachusetts as an "economics professor," argues that "...most ordinary people understand that the incentives built into the global capitalist system tend to reward some very bad behaviors." She then goes on to list things like "dumping waste products into the environment" and other capitalistic ills.

That would suggest that where there is no capitalism, there must be no real environmental damage. Is she kidding? The non-capitalist countries lead the league in environmental pollution. Try breathing the air in a typical non-capitalist country. I guess Professor Folbre doesn't travel much.

So, what does Professor Folbre recommend? She cites "calls for changes to articles of incorporation that would allow companies to pursue social missions without fear of shareholder litigation." What a great idea! Who would buy stocks with the knowledge that companies could toss company assets down the chute in pursuit of whatever "social mission" that Professor Folbre approves of? Do we all agree what a "social mission" is? Is my social mission the same as your social mission?

What is truly unbelievable is that Professor Folbre teaches young minds about economics. No mention in her blog today that only countries with capitalism can afford professors who indulge in this kind of nonsense. Countries without capitalism and who pursue "social missions" are mired in poverty, corruption, and, yes, environmental degradation. The non-capitalist countries don't have the luxury of blog-writing economics professors who detest capitalism.

Sunday 25 December 2011

More Nonsense from Academic Economists

Peter Diamond (MIT) and Emmanuel Saez (Berkeley) recently published an article in The Journal of Economic Perspectives (Fall 2011 issue) entitled: "The Case for a Progressive Tax: From Basic Research to Public Policy." This article exhibits the total absurdity of modern academic economic research.

The point of the article is to show the "scientific" case for progressive taxes. Their conclusion: the highest marginal income tax rates should approach 80 percent! That is the conclusion of Diamond-Saez so-called science.

Here are a few of the assumptions in this "science:"

1. "Because the government values redistribution, the social marginal value of consumption to top bracket taxpayers ...can be ignored..."

Transalation: rich people don't value income at all so they won't miss it if it is taxed away. (Note this is an assumption!) You might wonder how Diamond and Saez know what "the government values" (or what that expression even means). They don't elaborate. They just make the statement "...the government values..." and then they fill in the blanks. Must be nice.

Here's another "scientific" assumption:

2. "Since the goal of the marginal rates on very high income incomes is to get revenue in order to hold down taxes on lower earners, this equation does not depend on the total revenue needs of the government."

Translation: regardless of whether government spends anything we should tax rich people at the highest possible marginal rate so that we can redistribute income.

3. "..the tax avoidance or evasion component of the elasticity e is not an immutable parameter and can be reduced through base broadening and tax enforcement."

Translation: By eliminating all deductions and exemptions and taxing capital gains and all other forms of revenue to high income tax payers as ordinary income, we can eliminate any tendency to avoid taxes.

Turns out this is utter nonsense. All the wealthy have to do is borrow the necessary money to live their lifestyle and not show any income at all -- ordinary or capital income. Consider Warren Buffet. He could just borrow $ 100 million per year and live on that without showing any income for tax purposes at all. Diamond and Saez are probably unaware that high income folks borrow, so they have ignored this among the myriad other things this "scientific" study has ignored.

Or, alternatively, high income folks could move to a country with more rational policies regarding income taxes. Diamond and Saez did not consider that possibility. Perhaps, they should talk to the states of California and New York to discover whether high marginal rates drive people away.

Here's the ridiculous conclusion of this "scientific" paper: "Thus we have identified basic research findings that we find relevant in thinking about practical tax setting......the case for higher rates at the top appears robust in the context of this model."

The above is what passes for economic research in modern academia, along with the argument that increasing minimum wages increase employment. Next, I guess we will be reading about how enacting maximum home price laws will revive the housing market. You can't make this stuff up. This is why tuition levels are going through the roof...to support this nonsense.

Saturday 24 December 2011

The Poverty of "Economics"

An article in this morning's NYTimes by Catherine Rampell outlines the minimum wage increases that are coming on the 1st of January in eight states. As if lower income employees don't have enough problems this Christmas season, leave it to politicians (and economists) to make their lives worse.

The minimum wage increases will take place in Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Montana, Ohio, Oregon, Vermont and Washington. Note that some of these states are controlled by Republicans, some by Democrats. This is bi-partisan mischief.

Imagine that these same states passed a law saying that a gallon of milk can't be sold for less than $ 10 per gallon. Would dozens of economists step forward with studies showing that milk consumption would be unaffected by this kind of law? Would there be a bi-partisan consensus that a minimum price of milk is a good idea and would promote milk drinking? But, precisely this kind of absurd reasoning is brought forward to defend minimum wage laws (and their increases). Economists are notorious for putting forward their partisan political views as if they were science.

Minimum wage laws are an infringement on the freedom of contract and they deny job opportunities to people who need them. Those who might wish to work free as a way of gaining skills are legally prohibited from doing so. Those with skill sets below the minimum wage level would like to have a job at a lower wage (rather than no job at all), but are forbidden by law to have that first step up the ladder.

Why not just pass a law saying that poor people should be required to stay poor by law? That would have an effect similar to that of minimum wage laws. Economists and politicians who support minimum wage legislation should be ashamed of themselves. Perhaps we should pass a law saying that economists should be paid $ 10,000 per hour or otherwise be forbidden to work. Then, perhaps, economists would begin to understand the pernicious effects of minimum wage laws.

Thursday 22 December 2011

Another "Rip Van Winkle Year"

In 1987, the Dow Jones Industrial Average began and ended the year in the neighborhood of 2200. In July it topped out above 2700 and hit a low of 1700 in October. A lot of sound and fury to end unchanged!

It looks like we have a repeat performance this year. After the big rally in the first half of the year and the huge slump at the end of the summer, the Dow and the S&P are within a day's rally of being unchanged on the year. Not bad given all the bad news and disappointments.

Look for a big rally in 2012. 2011 isn't over yet, but it certainly seems to be about to finish about where it began, if not better.

Europe is a mess. US government policy is a mess. But, business is getting better and profits are improving. If you're looking for a job and you are in the bottom half of the nation's skill set, you're still in trouble and things aren't going to improve much for you in 2012. But, for the highly paid and for government employees, next year looks pretty good. Stocks will do well, bonds won't. Europe will adopt something akin to a monetization of the sovereign debt of the Eurozone countries -- a big mistake, but one that will give them a few years' breathing space until disastrous inflation overtakes them.

So, the long run future is pretty bleak, but the next couple of years will be good for stocks, good for rich people and good for protected government employees. For everyone else, let them enjoy the liberal rhetoric, because the liberal policies have undermined their future.

Republicans Blink and Cave -- Once Again

Extending the two percent payroll tax holiday is bad policy. The Republican House's rejection of the Senate bill was the right thing to do. Now, for purely political reasons, they are reversing course. Big mistake.

If, at the end of the day, Republicans can't show more backbone than this, then the future is not bright. Obama, even with no constructive policies (he has lots of destructive one) will coast to re-election if the public sees Republicans as lacking principles. Capitulating on the two month payroll tax holiday is not a good sign.

Tuesday 20 December 2011

What Explains Corzine? Really?

Who would have thought: a former top dog of Goldman Sachs betting the ranch on Spanish and Italian sovereign debt. Really?

This is one for the behavioral finance boys. Hubris is the only real explanation. You would have to believe that you are the smartest man in the world and that there is virtually no possibility that you could be wrong. Then, away you go! Load up on junky sovereign debt and show the world!

Is this were a movie script, no one would buy it. It's too ridiculous.

But, happen it did. Not only that, Mr. Corzine appeared before Congressional committees and tritely explained that he knew nothing at all about how his company, MF Global, was meeting the daily margin calls (all repo transactions are marked to market daily). But, of course, Corzine did not know anything about that. He bought 6.5 billion in bonds and didn't give a thought to what the necessary cash position was that would be necessary to sustain that position as it collapsed in the market place. Really?

I suppose the reason that Corzine wasn't concerned about how his firm was going to meet the cash marks on their huge bond bet was that it was 100% certain to go his way. No need for cash!

Did they have to dip into customer accounts to meet margin calls? Apparently, this was not Corzine's concern. He was not involved in how the firm met the growing cash margin calls that were escalating daily at MF Global. Really?

I suppose Corzine was merely a face man. Someone else must have been running MFGlobal all this time. I wonder when that person will appear and own up to what happened to the customers $ 1.2 billion in missing funds. Really?

The Payroll "Tax Cut"

Is reducing the payroll tax for one year by 2 percentage points a good idea? Normally, I think reducing any tax is a good idea. Why feed the beast?

But, don't forget the real issues are: 1) economic stagnation; 2) size and reach of government; 3) the growing national debt. A temporary drop in the payroll tax doesn't do much about any of these issues. So, what good is it really?

It's interesting that the politicos have seized on this debate as a big deal. In truth, whether or not the payroll tax is temporarily reduced by an amount of this magnitude is mostly political theater.

The big Obama concession in this drama is the Senate Democrats retreat from the millionaire surtax. The millionaire surtax is a completely absurd idea that moves us away from the resolving the three problems cited above.

Name me a millionaire who cares what the tax rate is. Millionaires can simply readjust their assets (or better yet just take out loans) and avoid taxable income at their pleasure. Thus raising the tax rates on millionaires just guarantees a lower level of tax revenues from millionaires. Who wins with that outcome?

The House Republicans are the only adults in the room. They see the folly of a two month drop in the payroll tax. It is political theater and should be rejected as such.

If the public can't see through this silliness, then they deserve the government (and the economy) that they have.

Sunday 18 December 2011

Visions of Sugar Plums

One more week and Santa comes cruising our way. What will be in his stocking and what does the New Year portend?

The good news for many Americans is that the US economy is not falling off the cliff. Even the coming debacle in Europe will not prevent the American economy from a slow and steady climb out of the abyss.

Bad economic policy has throttled the American and western economies in ways that the Asian economies haven't yet learned (they will learn in time). But even bad policy can't completely eliminate economic growth, if some remnants of capitalism remain.

So, the future is bright for Asia and the future is bright for most of the under-developed world. The advanced economies have mortgaged their futures, so the lights will dim for the coming generations in the western economies. At the end of the day, someone has to work, someone has to save, someone has to hire people. This is a message that the western world has forgotten, but the underdeveloped world has not.

There will continue to be cycles of all types, booms and busts, bubbles, bankruptcies and all the rest. These are all necessary ingredients of healthy capitalism and will not go away until capitalism is extinguished by ardent reformers.

True economic fairness and justice requires providing the opportunity for every citizen to use his/her talents to the fullest. Policies in the US and Western Europe go in the other direction. Anyone with real talent will be stifled in the western economies over the next few generations. The bright lights are on in Asia, the dimmer switch has been hit in the Western world.

Perhaps this is not all bad. The advanced economies have had their moment in the sun and the current advancing economies are hungry to supplant them. That they will do so will write the history of the 21st century.

Thursday 8 December 2011

Learning from Elsa Fornero

The front page of the Wall Street Journal last Monday, December 5, had three pictures of a woman in tears. That woman is Elsa Fornero, the Welfare Minister in the new “technocratic” government of Italy. The fact that she was in tears was truly remarkable and it deserved to be on the front page of a major business newspaper. This is something new, and there is a lesson to be learned from it.

Elsa Fornero, a professor of Economics at the University of Turin, is an international expert on pensions. In charge of one of the most difficult reforms, i.e., changing the pension system in Italy, she has set out to implement a set of new and severe measures that nobody before her has been able to do, even though the current system is unsustainable.

Reforms might be right, but they are painful, and the fact that they are necessary does not alleviate any of the pain they inflict. Technocrats normally describe necessary reforms as the inevitable medicine that a country has to swallow to get better; the numbers are on their side, and no one had ever shed a tear when reform might mean that someone wouldn’t be able to pay their bills at the end of the month. But not Elsa Fornero. The woman who, for more than forty years, has done the calculations about the pension system in Italy; has shown in many scholarly papers that the Italian pension system is unfair, inefficient, and too expensive; has set up a center to study this topic in the most rigorous way, looking at data both in Italy and in other countries, was there at center stage to announce her reforms. The new Minister, who was appointed for her unique expertise, stopped speaking at the very moment she had to pronounce the word “sacrifice”—and cried.

This is not only a sign of humanity, a recognition that reforms often equal pain, but also an act of humility and of immense courage. It took a woman to attack reform of one of the most difficult and stubborn pension systems. She had one week to do it. She knew what to do and what was necessary. And when she described it, she told it as it is, and she cried.

I hope this is the start of a new phase both for politics and for women. Politicians need to have the skills and good judgment to set countries on sustainable paths and (financially literate) citizens should hold them accountable. And I hope we are done with the “iron lady” and similar clichés about women in command. I highly recommend that other Italian politicians be so bold in their actions as the Fornero reforms, as well as show that they care about the well-being of their fellow citizens. We all can learn from Elsa Fornero to be ourselves; in her case, a woman who cares. When I grow up, I want to be Elsa Fornero.

Friday 2 December 2011

The Equity Market Spurt

This is another extraordinary week for global stock markets. The US market has climbed nearly eight percent in just the past four market days. Why?

Once again, the pundits look to Europe and the ongoing circus of inept politicians struggling to keep defaults from occurring on their watch. This week's announcement of non-Euro central bank swap facilities' rate drop to provide liquidity to the ECB, to be passed along to the European banking community, is cited as the reason for the rally. Not likely.

The political antics in the Eurozone will provide no relief to the inevitable defaults that will sweep the Eurozone. Nothing will prevent that from happening. The only thing the European politicians are trying to do is kick the can down the road. No one is discussing the real solution, which involves dismantling the entitlement structures and reducing the role of government in their economies. Anything short of the real solution is no solution and will ultimately fail.

But, does it really matter all that much for global equity markets? The markets have struggled to find any direction since late July even though the microeconomics of public companies have rarely been as good as they appear today. The US economy, in particular, is not falling into a second recession. The US economy is growing, though saddled with some of the most perverse economic policies in its history. Today's NY Times has a very instructive article detailing the plight of the unemployed who are at the bottom of the skill pyramid. The administration's policies have doomed these folks to permanent penury.

But, the US economy as a whole is growing. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer under the Obama regime's policies, which, ironically, are designed to help the poor at the expense of the rich. Policies like that always boomerang. The US economy will continue to grow slowly and businesses will continue to find ways to avoid hiring in any large numbers.

Remember September, 1983 when the economy produced 1.1 million jobs? That seems like a lost memory of the bad old days of Reagan-economics. That won't happen again as long as the Obama team is in place. An administration committing to demonizing job creators will find job creation a long, slow process and the many Americans that are looking for jobs will keep looking until these policies change. But stocks will do fine.

Thursday 24 November 2011

A False Choice

It's President Obama's favorite expression -- "a false choice" -- but it seems like the right expression for what pundits are describing as the Eurozone's only alternatives at this point: issue eurobonds or face chaotic default. But, are these really the only choices?

What about a workout -- Argentina style? Why won't that work? A debt workout would likely be a win-win for the Eurozone debtors and their creditors.

The market has already set the stage for such a workout for Greece, whose outstanding debt is now trading at a fraction of its originally issued value. Why not go the rest of the way by offering creditors repayment with a substantial haircut? That would then set the stage for similar "workouts" across Europe.

This would reduce Eurozone debt, force creditors to absorb some of the impact of their poor investment decisions, and avoid the austerity measures that can only lead to political upheaval.

No need to abandon the Euro. All that is needed is a touch of realism

Monday 21 November 2011

Sequestration is a Better Solution

The Super Committee, at best, would have ended up with a variety of tricks that would not reduce the burgeoning size of government, so we should all celebrate the failure of the Super Committee. Bring on sequestration. The US cannot afford it's current path and whatever reduces the size of the mountain is a plus. We should resist any and all efforts to restore any of the cuts that are mandated under sequestration.

Time to include entitlements in the sequestration.

Sunday 20 November 2011

Why The Young Have a "European" Future

Young people in America face much less opportunity than their parents. Why? Corporate greed?

Is greed something new that just burst on the scenes in the past ten years or so and has squashed the hopes of our young folks? Is greed the reason that young folks increasingly can't find jobs and are forced to take the European way -- live at home with your parents until you are in your late 30s? So, if no one is greedy, then jobs will magically appear and all will be well? Is that the thinking of the OWS crowd?

For starters, absent greed, there would be no jobs. Someone has to be greedy enough to want to make a profit and thus hire employees. The more profit they want to make, the more they have to expand their business and the more employees they will have to hire. Greed creates jobs. The absence of greed means there is no motive to hire anyone.

Those who push the "greed" thesis believe that an economy is a fixed pie that is available for everyone to take a slice and that politics is about who gets the biggest slice. If that view of the economy is correct, then the OWS people are right. That would simplify things a lot. That would mean that some of the poorest nations in the world have figured it out. Everyone is on the brink of starvation. The pie is fixed, not growing, and the only political issues are how to divide it in countries like that. OWS folks would like that, I suppose.

"Greed" has taken over in China and pushed it to nearly 10 percent economic growth year after year. The result is nearly 300 million people have moved from a standard of living of $ 200 per year to a standard of living of $ 20,000 per year in the newly prosperous cities of China. Where there is no apparent greed, in the Chinese countryside, the standard of living remains stuck at $ 200 per year. The OWS folks would like this because there is no 1 %. 100 % of folks in rural China live badly, but the pie is certainly sliced fairly....everyone gets virtually nothing.

What has happened to America that young people don't have the opportunities that were available to their parents? First and foremost, our parents were not saddled with modern employment laws that dramatically raise the cost of labor. Our parents got to keep most of what the employer paid in labor costs. Not anymore. What an employee gets is a fraction of what an employer must pay in modern America. This means that employers that want workers are becoming a vanishing breed. Minimum wage laws, family leave acts, OSHA, discrimination laws. growing legal liabilities for things both in the workplace and outside of the workplace, health care costs (why are health care costs an expense to be borne by employers?). All of these "good" things make labor too expensive in modern America and those who will suffer the most will be the least skilled amongst us -- minorities, youth, the unemployed. These are the victims of the big government agenda.

Second, social security and medicare have provided benefits to the older folks that are paid for by young workers and future young workers. That's a bad deal for young workers and future young workers to be saddled with a monstrous debt load that arose by providing benefits to people that never earned them (in any actuarial sense). But they have to paid for. The youth do that. What do they get for this? Nothing.

So young folks are prisoners of bad government policy. What the country needs is for those who want to get rich to have the opportunity to do so by hiring workers. If you don't like rich people, you probably don't mind high levels of unemployment (as long as it's not you) and young people increasingly forced to return home to their parents. That's been the European way for generations. It is now becoming the American way and for pretty much the same set of reasons.

Tuesday 15 November 2011

OWS: Gimme, Gimme

Occupy Wall Street is not about a political argument really. It is simply the idea that some folks are entitled and others are not. The protestors are "demanding" various things that they claim are theirs by right -- mostly they want things other people have worked hard to obtain.

Instead of putting their shoulder to the wheel and working to accomplish things in life, the protestors want others -- the rich, they say -- to fund them. College graduates after four years of fun frequenting the local bar scene on government (taxpayer) loan funding, now, with sociology degree in hand, want high paying jobs for which they have no qualifications.

None of this is really about politics. This is merely the anthem of the entitlement -- give me what others have because I am me and I am entitled. Not much else going on.

People with real responsibilities do not have time for this. They are busy out working hard either at their job or they are working hard looking for a job. Only the entitled need to do neither. Hopefully, the "entitled" are not 99 percent, but a much smaller percentage of our society.

Eventually as more and more people join the "entitled," you arrive at the situation Europe finds itself in. Everyone wants free this and free that. Unfortunately, there aren't enough "rich" people or naive bondholders to permit this situation to go on indefinitely.

Monday 14 November 2011

What About the US?

With Europe heading for massive defaults and economic contraction, what is the future for the US?

Weakness in Europe will not be a plus, but more fundamental problems await the US. Our debt situation is worse than the situation currently plaguing the Eurozone. Yes, our situation is worse.

The various "states" of Europe have unsustainable levels of debt, just as most of the larger states in the US have unsustainable levels of debt (Illinois, California, New York, New Jersey, etc.). But Europe does not have a federal debt problem. The Eurozone does not issue it's own debt. The US does. So, the US has sovereign debt at two levels -- the federal level and the state level, while the Eurozone has sovereign debt only at the "state" level.

No amount of cuts and tax increases will have any impact whatever on the dynamics of US debt. Thus, the current discussion about the Supercommittee is largely irrelevant. (Democrats have pretty much admitted that by listing as $ 1 Trillion in cuts the cuts from "not fighting future undeclared wars!)"

The problem of US federal debt is an entitlement problem and has an easy solution -- a very easy solution, an almost trivial solution. Moving the age of eligibility out a few years for both social security and medicare is the one and only solution that will have any impact whatsoever on our national debt problems (and scaling back medicaid). Nothing else really moves the (long term) needle at all.

As for the states, the states' problem is a problem of the benefits or "entitlements" that they provide for their public employees. Moving the age of "eligibility" out and substantially reducing the benefits for those not currently retired is the only way of moving the needle for the problems of the states (and municipalities). Nothing else really matters at all.

All the talk about tax increases and reducing (discretionary) spending is largely beside the point. Whatever virtues or vices there may be in altering the tax system and reducing the levels of discretionary spending, such tinkering does not make any difference at all in the long run debt dynamics of the US.

The numbers are the numbers.

Wednesday 9 November 2011

Goodbye Italy

Look at the numbers: $ 2.6 Trillion national debt which amounts to 120 percent of GDP. Nearly 15 percent of that debt comes due within the next twelve months. Yields on 10 year bonds now north of 7 percent. That's Italy.

The Italian political leader Berlusconi has resigned, joining his pal Papandreou. It's over for Italy. All that is left to speculate about is when Italy will recognize the necessity to do a planned workout -- commonly known as a (partial) default.

Before this is over, the leadership in Germany, France, and Spain will also step down, either voluntarily or by action of the voters.

This game has only one end. Either these countries sit down with their bondholders and work out a partial default plan or total chaos will be the end result when they simply can no longer sell debt at all and can't pay their day to day bills.

The unreality of the approach of European leaders is almost comic, except for the tragic implications that their foolishness may lead to.

There is no harm in a partial default. The bondholders already know they are in deep, deep trouble. A partial default only recognizes what markets have already accomplished -- major losses for bondholders. The bondholders are already there -- time for a workout.

Of course, this means that the entitlement systems can no longer function as they have in the past. There are simply no funds available for these systems. No one is willing to lend money to support other people in a grand lifestyle -- not anymore.

The countries of Europe will be forced, after a debt workout, to dismantle the entitlement systems that have undermined the work ethic in Europe and saddled their countries and much of the rest of the world with bonds that cannot be repaid.

Next up on the docket is the US. It's just a matter of time, but it is basically the same scenario.

Saturday 5 November 2011

Greek Political Turmoil

According to the news media, what Greek politicians do next will determine whether or not the current Euro crisis can be "resolved." Not really.

The main significance of the past week of Greek political back and forth is that political leaders throughout Europe are in trouble -- big trouble.

Countries forced into austerity measures will, in the end, replace their political leadership. That process is already under way in Greece and Spain and is surfacing in Italy as well.

Countries who are putting their taxpayers on the line to support the bailout of the profligate countries will also soon begin the process of replacing their political leaders -- Germany and France.

Neither side of this grand scheme, the bailors or the bailees, have the support of their voters. Why is this a surprise? The effort to bail out the sovereign debt problems of Greece, Spain, Italy (Portugal, Ireland) is a "lose-lose" policy and voters can see clearly that it is not in their interest, no matter what country they live in.

What works is a recognition that the debts are unsustainable and that it is time to sit down with creditors and do a workout -- a planned default.

It might take changing the political leadership in all major European countries, not just in Greece, to get the focus on the real solution to the European debt crisis.

Friday 4 November 2011

Corzine Bets and Loses

John Corzine, former Senator and Governor of New Jersey and former Chairman of Goldman Sachs, stepped down today as Chairman of MFGlobal, as MFGlobal remained in the headlines for its bankruptcy filing two days ago. Corzine presided over the firm as it made huge bets on European sovereign debt, thinking that the worst of that crisis had passed. Unfortunately for Corzine and MFGlobal, the worst of the crisis is yet to come and MFGlobal and its leader are no more.

To Corzine's credit, he has always espoused the view that sovereign debt problems are imaginary and not real problems. He never had much interest in measures that might tame the growth in US national debt or the debt problems in New Jersey. So, at least, Corzine is consistent.

The blind spot that poisoned Corzine's reign at MFGlobal is the same blindspot that pervades current attitudes on the US's national debt (and the obligations of a number of state governments). These huge debt loads are not sustainable, blind spots notwithstanding.

One good thing worth noting is that there was no rescue for MFGlobal, which is good. Second, Corzine took no severance as he fell on his sword today. That is also good.

There is a whiff in the air that there might be a problem in customer accounts, but I suspect that that is probably not the case, but we shall see. Assuming no mingling of customer accounts, this seems to be a case where markets worked properly and the outcome is the proper one. The company made a big bad bet and it didn't work. The result -- bankruptcy. That is as it should be. Firms will learn if we let them.

Thursday 3 November 2011

The Unraveling of a Dumb Idea

The proposed "deal" that has been crafted by France and Germany for the EU to "save" the Euro is one of the most absurd plans that has ever been concocted. It should be obvious that neither the bailors nor the bailees are going to go along with this (even if their leaders continue to pursue such foolishness).

It's time to say: "we're broke" and be done with all of this obfuscation. None of the deals make any sense and none will survive past the self-congratulatory posturing deal-announcements of Merkel and Sarcozy. Give it up.

It isn't clear on the basis of the data that the sovereign debt of France and Germany has any real hope of survival, much less the southern periphery of Europe. (Is the US really in a position to "bail out" Illinois, California and New York, when the inevitable time of their impending defaults arrive?).

The problem is not "confidence" or "liquidity." When your house is burning to the ground, a cup of water isn't going to help. The problem in Europe is identical to the problem in the US and Japan. Promises have been made to people that cannot be kept. There is no way to shift the chairs around on the deck. No one can afford all the free and subsidized stuff that Europe and America have promised. The party is over.

Two generations have lived high on the hog until the ponzi-scheme nature of the funding of retirement and health care have been exposed. Now, the party is over. There isn't some group of future bondholders out there willing to throw good money after bad. Let's face it. It's time for Greece, Spain, Italy, etc (probably Germany and France as well within two or three years) to throw in the towel and began to sit down with their creditors and fashion a realistic deal (meaning default).

A lot of newsprint and stock market gyrations have been wasted on the continuing political sideshow going on in Europe. It will lead nowhere and defaults are inevitable.

Tuesday 1 November 2011

Greeks Should Vote No

Why should the Greeks agree to the bailout terms of the EU? If I were a Greek citizen, I would vote no. There is simply no way that generations of Greeks should buy in to austerity to support bad decisions by Greek bondholders. Default is the right answer -- for everyone -- not just for Greece.

If Greece defaults, and that doesn't necessarily mean leaving the Euro (any more than when Illinois defaults, which it will, that it means Illinois will leave the US dollar zone), then and only then can Greece, on its own, begin to correct the absurd government policies that have wrecked their economy. They have to reach this realization on their own. It cannot be forced from outside.

Greece is just the first gong in a series of bells that will ring of default through the Western world. No one, no one, can afford the economic policies that Europe has adopted over the past half century. Why the present US administration wants to emulate this disastrous course is not clear.

The idea that health care, retirement, education, housing, minimum wages, right to sue for virtually any absurd reason that one can dream up are all rights that must be provided to every citizen free of charge is so absurd as to hardly call for discussion. But these are the very policies that the Western world has adopted. Now, Europe and the US will have to live with the consequences and they are not pretty.

Again, Asia (ex-Japan), has not adopted the foolish policies of the West. Asia will achieve economic supremacy and fairly quickly as the West descends into the economic chaos that it has brought upon itself by the foolish view that government can provide all things to all people free of charge.

Sunday 30 October 2011

Back to Basics

The number one problem for the US and for Western Europe is job creation. There is no bigger problem. The politicians can focus on all sorts of other things: taxing rich people, subsidizing pet projects, bashing China, etc. But, anyone who thinks there is a bigger problem than unemployment is missing the forest for the trees.

How do we get more jobs? That is not a tough question. It is only tough because we are talking about labor. If we asked the identical question about anything else, the answer would be painfully obvious. For some reason, politicians and many economists become completely irrational when asked how to increase the demand for labor. If the same politicians and economists were asked about how to increase the demand for anything else the answer would be immediately forthcoming.

How do you increase the demand for something?

How about making that something more expensive? Would that help?

What about substantially increasing the taxes for people that use that something? Would that help?

What about passing new regulations that would apply to using that something? Would that help?

To increase the demand for apples, why not make apples more expensive, tax folks who eat apples, and make anyone who buys apples spend one month of every year filling out paperwork to satisfy the regulations required to consume apples. Would that increase the demand for apples?

Yet, politicians and economists (like Paul Krugman) think that this is exactly the prescription necessary to get to full employment of labor. They are wrong.

To get more jobs, you need to reduce the cost of labor, increase the economic incentives for those who employ labor and reduce the regulations that surround the employment of labor. That's how you would increase the demand for anything including labor.

Saturday 29 October 2011

The Anger of the Entitled

Wherever you look these days, there are people demonstrating for their "rights." These "rights" are the right to take money from other people so that the demonstrators can have free this and free that. If education and health care are to be free, who pays? The demonstrators could care less.

Look at Greece. There are daily and massive demonstrations demanding that their failed welfare state continue to support the "entitled." It is always someone else that should pay for all of the things that the "entitled" want. Everything is a fundamental "right" without obligations on the part of the entitled to fund anything. There are no obligations to be imposed on the entitled. After all, they are the entitled.

What about Italy and Spain? Who pays? Their answer is the same as the OWS (Occupy Wall Street) crowd. They payers are "the rich." As if the rich had enough assets to keep all of these entitled folks going on indefinitely. The move to "get the rich" has historical precedents and none of them are very attractive for average people.

The Russian and Cuban experiments were long playing disasters for the average person living through those experiments. It's worth noting that even those "leveling" societies had their privileged. The Castro family lives in a style that America's rich would love to aspire to.

People with responsibilities, kids to take care of, old folks to support and the like don't have time to camp out in make-shift camps around the US and the world and make posters with four letter words describing their hatred for capitalism.

When winter comes, the OWS gang will retreat to the warmth of their comfortable homes or back to their "entitled" college community.

The truly disadvantaged don't have time for this stuff. But the truly "entitled" can camp out for years on end before retreating to a more comfortable lifestyle that they are "entitled" to.

The rest of us have to work for a living.

Milton Friedman noted long ago that the only societies that have ever produced for the average person were capitalist societies. Such societies also produced rich people as a by product of raising the standard of living of the average person. You can see the fruits of capitalism today in China raising the standard of living of hundreds of millions of Chinese. Capitalism is what is needed if the average person is going to have a fair shake.

But, the entitled are not interested in capitalism. They are mainly interested in getting their "rights" at the expense of others.

Friday 28 October 2011

Ho Hum

The European "deal" is mostly a mirage. The only "real" thing that takes place in the deal is the 50% write down of Greek sovereign debt and even that write down only applies to the 60 percent of the debt that is in "private" hands, meaning mainly in the hands of commercial banks.

Buried in this deal is the possibility that CDS (credit default swap) contracts will not be triggered. That is probably a sop to the banks who are on the hook for these contracts, which, among other things, insure Greek sovereign debt. No payoff for those who took out insurance. Who would have thought?

Europe is following the American pattern of reneging on past contracts to foster the illusion that they are solving today's problems. (America continues this pattern with debt forgiveness orchestrated by the White House, invalidating legitimate private sector contracts with the hope of securing more votes for Obama in 2012).

As for the EFSF (European Financial Stability Fund), the plan for that entity is ridiculous. Somehow, someway, someone is going to give the EFSF $ 1 Trillion and then that will be used to "insure" the first twenty percent of loss on newly issued debt, presumably debt issued by Greece, Spain and Italy. Who is going to come up with the $ 1 Trillion? The short answer is no one. The long answer involves numerous future headlines about the Chinese, the Saudis, and other targets, who will play nice, but, in the end, will donate nothing at all to this silly idea.

This "deal" now gives breathing space for a further expansion in sovereign debt by the weakest members of the EU so that a year from now, problems will be much, much worse than they are now. Meanwhile, Greece can go back to running the most inefficient economy on the planet without fearing a default (in the next few weeks).

So, why did the markets go up?

Because the US economy continues to grow, albeit slowly, and business is learning how to do without employees and still make money. So stocks will continue their upward march -- at least for a while yet. A sick Europe and an ever growing sovereign debt debacle is factored into market prices already. That's why the market is cheap (but getting less cheap).

Monday 24 October 2011

We are All Blacks!

This has been a busy fall so far with a lot of travelling (I am on my way to Sweden), starting a new financial literacy seminar series (more in future blogs), and keeping up with my newly acquired interests: football and rugby! It has been a season full of exciting games, including the Rugby World Cup, which was held in New Zealand. I am extremely happy to announce that the New Zealand All Blacks are the World Cup champions! I am ecstatic and wish I were in New Zealand to celebrate their victory. What could be sweeter than winning the World Cup when your country is the host and your fans are in the stadium? I can only imagine the explosion of joy in Eden Park in Auckland at the end of the match with France (and the sense of relief as well since the score was so close, I could hardly breath...).

I will celebrate this great victory by writing about New Zealand and the role they have played in the field of financial literacy. Under the leadership of feisty Diana Crossan, the Retirement Commission has done a lot of innovative work on financial literacy. I mentioned in a previous post that they have one of the best national web sites dedicated to improving the financial literacy of the population. They were also one of the first countries to conduct a second national financial literacy survey in order to measure financial knowledge over time and therefore assess their progress in improving financial literacy. They have many programs targeted to specific groups of the population, recognizing that different people have different needs and different economic circumstances. One group of great interest is the Maori, and specific programs have been designed for them as well. While small and without a big budget, the Commission is a mighty group. And to better communicate the focus of their work, they have recently changed their name from Retirement Commission to the Commission for Financial Literacy and Retirement Income. The main lesson here is not to underestimate the power and ingenuity of what one institution—however small—can do for financial literacy. And while New Zealand is a small country, it has been a model to look to for financial literacy.

I have one recommendation for Diana Crossan: go to that talented captain of the All Blacks, Richie McCaw, show him your muscles (figuratively, I mean), and ask the team to support financial literacy. I am sure a lot of New Zealanders would pay attention. In my view, sport and financial literacy go very well together (wink)!

But for now, congratulations to the All Blacks and to New Zealand for being World Champions and hosting the World Cup. Bravi!

Sunday 23 October 2011

Side Issues and Reality

You might wonder why all the talk about greed and Wall Street. Isn't the real issue that the American economy is moribund and that unemployment is at staggeringly high levels? Why is the national debt important? Because it threatens the economic vitality of the future. These are the real issues -- the economy. They are made more real by the simple fact that opportunities for those who are less fortunate always improve with economic growth and always decline with economic stagnation.

Case in point -- today. As much as the Obama folks crow that they support the economically less fortunate, the Obama policies are devastating the poor, minorities and the less fortunate among us. Folks cannot find work. That is the real problem.

It is clear that President Obama will never focus on the economy's real problem -- stagnation and unemployment. He doesn't understand such problems because he has never experienced them and knows no one who has ever experienced these problems. His olympian view is that politics can solve all ills.

Well, politics has devastated our economy and our economic future. Government policy, regulation, and taxes have brought the American economy to its knees. Europe and the US have made promises to their citizenry that cannot be kept. So, why not change the subject? Find someone else to blame. We've seen this political tactic before many times in world history.

Monday 17 October 2011

If Germany Caves

There is always the possibility that Germany will agree to underwrite the sovereign debt problems of the PIIGS countries (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, Spain). How would that look? Imagine the concept of creating Eurobonds that all of the Eurozone countries stand behind (which would basically put Germany on a hook that they are not currently on) or have the ECB buy $ 2 Trillion of Sovereign debt (which would be pretty much the same thing). What happens then?

If this happens, you have the situation that will, in time, present itself to the US. There will be a massive debt that really cannot ever be paid off other than by simply printing currency and using the currency to continue to fund the debt. That means massive worldwide inflation with the purpose of destroying the "value" of the outstanding sovereign debt. If the inflation does not spiral out of control, this could work. It would be simply another way of defaulting.

Imagine a 10 percent inflation rate worldwide. In a reasonably short time, the value of outstanding sovereign debt would fall dramatically (along with all currency-denominated assets). In effect, you simply destroy the value of the sovereign bonds as you use the printing press to keep them current. If you can keep the inflation rate high but under control, this will do the trick. The danger is, of course, that inflation can have a mind of its own and might not remain under control. This could mean hyperinflation which could destroy the major economies of the world. But, it is possible that inflation could be kept under control at a high level. Who knows?

One side effect is the destruction of all of the entitlement programs. Social security and pension funds which are denominated in dollars will lose much of their value (politicians will find a way to eliminate cost of living indices that are in place to preserve the value of these funds). Health care programs are budgeted in dollars. They will become worthless as well. Public employees will find their salaries fixed and they will find themselves impoverished.

What will prosper in this environment is anything whose value is not stated and fixed in currency terms -- commodities, free market businesses, anything where prices adjust upward with inflation.

In other words, world wide inflation triggered by selling Eurobonds or some other equivalent scheme, is just a default by another name (see Rogoff and Rinehart's recent book, "This Time is Different").

Just plain defaulting would be much simpler, but may not suit the politicians as well as massive inflation.

Saturday 15 October 2011

The Blame Game

If you buy a residence in the US and live in it, you are in a remarkable situation, especially if you finance the home with a large mortgage. If the value of your home rises, you can sell it tax free (in more than 98 percent of actual home sale situations) and if the value of your home falls, you can, in most states, simply move away and owe nothing. Even better, the government subsidizes the interest expense that you pay on the mortgage by permitting tax deductions for mortgage interest paid.

If you decide to pay off your mortgage early (to take advantage of lower mortgage rates), the government insists that all "conformable" mortgage loans (comformable to GNMA standards, which accounts for more than 90 percent of all US mortgages) provide for no penalty whatsoever to homeowners choosing to refinance their homes (a luxury unheard of in the mortgage market for commercial real estate).

As if that isn't enough, Congress has created two "quasi" government agencies, Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and Federal Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) who currently own or guarantee more than half of the mortgages in the US. The effect of this taxpayer largess to home buyers is to lower the interest rates paid on home mortgages by providing massive amounts of taxpayer dollars for the mortgage market.

Is there a wonder that there was a housing bubble? Does it really require predatory lenders to get this rocket-fueled housing bubble going?

If virtually all capital gains on common stock were tax free, we would see a massive bubble in US stocks, especially if the interest on stock loans were tax deductible and if the government provided taxpayer money to loan money to potential stock holders.

So, why the deal with housing?

The government (both political parties) made the decision to favor home ownership over renting for the average American.

Note that none of the legislation introduced by either President Obama or Republicans does anything to change the current government favoritism of residential housing. So, guess what? We are absolutely assured to repeat the housing bubble and bust in the future. Nothing in Dodd-Frank or the other sledgehammer attacks on capitalism initiated by President Obama and his Democratic Congress do anything to change government's policies that guarantee another housing disaster at some future date.

What about Canada? Canada does not have tax-free sales of residential homes. Canada does not permit tax deductions for interest expense. Canada does not have a Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac? Guess what? Canada had no housing bubble either. Are Canadians that different from Americans? Nope. They just have different government policies regarding housing.

So, why are Wall Streeters blamed for the housing bubble, but government policies get a free ride? Because politicans have no clue as to what happened from 2006 to the present. Today's Obama tirades are simply a knee-jerk, anti-capitalism reflex to a downturn that their very own political allies put in motion generations earlier.

Wall Streeters did not cause the housing bubble or its subsequent collapse. Wall Streeters did not put in place the Obama policies that have stifled any hopes of a vigorous economic recovery.

The real blame for the housing bubble and collapse belongs to current government policies regarding residential housing. Until those policies end, we are doomed to repeat the housing bubbles and busts.

Thursday 13 October 2011

Background Noise

Occupy Wall Street (OWS) and the President's "jobs plan" have become background noise to the faltering US economy. Far more interesting are the political shenanigans in Europe attempting mission impossible -- trying to keep most of Europe from defaulting. This steady drumbeat of irrelevance beats on as the Western economies slide into the mud.

Capitalism is now so hamstrung in the Western economies that we will soon be trumpeting 8 % unemployment as full employment. Europe is pretty much used to that already. European countries haven't seen four percent unemployment since Queen Victoria's days and they are not likely to see it again in the future. The US is a tag along.

All of our troubles in the Western world stem from one simple consideration: many people have an insatiable desire to be appear to be "good" people. Appearance is the key here. Really helping people is not the plan.

Look at Buffett. He is complaining that people like him don't pay enough taxes. That problem is easily solved. He can send in more money with his tax return. Then he can pay what he deems his fair share. You think he would do that? Are you kidding? Buffett is just trying to prove that he is a "good" guy. This is all about appearances. Buffett has no intention of paying more in taxes. If he did, he would do it. Nothing prevents Buffett from paying more in taxes right now, except that he doesn't want to pay them. But, he sure wants to BS about how he wants to pay more. Interesting!

Most good ideas that people want to foist on others, such as minimum wage laws, don't affect anyone but poor people. Minimum wage laws simply outlaw certain contractual arrangements because one is poor. That's it....nothing more. Heaven help you if your skill set doesn't merit some liberal's idea of a living wage. You are just flat out of lack. Let them eat cake, one supposes.

And so it goes. Laws passed to help workers invariably end up creating reasons for employers to not have workers. Anytime government favors a group, it makes them toxic to other people and especially toxic to people who make hiring decisions.

Good ideas designed to help people become anchors that prevent people from the having the opportunity to improve their lot. That's why inequality has grown so dramatically in the past several decades. Liberal help has created a situation where the poorest among us have no real upside anymore.

The rich are comfortable which is why virtually every wealthy suburb in America is now represented by some arrogant white liberal. Nancy Pelosi's district isn't full of poor people and Nancy Pelosi is herself among the 1/100 of 1 percent of the richest people in America. Let them eat cake. Thanks Nancy!

These folks bask in self adulation thinking that they are doing good, but what they are really doing is preserving their dominance over folks less fortunate. The welfare state is like a boot on the neck of poor people. They just don't have a chance in this kind of environment.

What the less fortunate among us need is for the government to get out of the way and give them a chance. Asia is giving their citizens a shot. That's why Asia will supplant the West as the dominant economic power within another two generations.

Wednesday 5 October 2011

The Wall Street Protestors

You just knew that it couldn't be confined to Greece. The US has more than its share of folks that feel entitled and now they are congregating daily on Wall Street. Students, having spent four years boozing it up and studying sociology, now wonder where are the jobs?

Corporate greed, huh? Who owns corporations? Workers mainly...in their pension funds. So, if you can destroy corporations, you are basically destroying the savings and the economic future of the average worker -- union worker, state and local public employee worker, anyone with an IRA. There isn't some rich guy out there that owns Big Oil. The average worker owns Big Oil in his pension fund.

So, we come full circle. The attack on greed is really an attack on the retirement hopes and dreams of the average American. They have been so greedy as to plan for retirement or to work for an employer that provides a pension fund. By all means, lets destroy it in a war on "corporate greed."

We are no longer debating policies; we are now debating "sharing burdens." "Sharing" means I want what is yours. That is sharing. The idea is that we no longer intend to see the pie grow, so let's start cutting the pie up and sharing it. Forget about the idea that America can be a properous and growing country. That's so....Reagan-like.

This is what happens when the highest levels of government no longer have any policy prescriptions other than demonizing rich people. It catches on. Pretty soon rich people are really the middle class and the working classes. They are all greedy when compared to a bunch of students used to cutting classes (which they are doing now), and wondering why the world isn't beating a path to their door.

There isn't much of a labor market for empty political rhetoric. These protestors are going to be out there for a long time. They represent the new normal in the Obama economy.

Tuesday 4 October 2011

Financial literacy, the Maori, and … rugby

I am just back from Australia and New Zealand and will write first about my trip to New Zealand. I was invited to attend a meeting at the University of Otago with representatives of the Maori population, who have become interested in financial literacy. If you do not know the Maori, they are the indigenous people of New Zealand and represent about 15% of the population today. Their name is derived from “Ma-Uri,” which means “children of Heaven.” Maori comprise many “iwi” (tribes), “hapu” (subtribes), and “whānau” (extended family units). Having originated in Polynesia, they brought with them the rich culture of the region, where song, dance, art, and oratorical skills were significant, especially as there was no written language at that time. On my visit to New Zealand a couple of years ago, I went to Rotorua, a town settled by the Maori on the North Island. This time, I was in Dunedin, on the South Island of New Zealand, home of the Ngāi Tahu. See below a picture of the formal greeting among the Maori.

In one of the papers that is part of an international comparison of financial literacy across countries, which I have edited for a special volume of the Journal of Pension Economics and Finance, a research group in New Zealand headed by Pension Commissioner Diana Crossan documented differences in financial literacy among the new Zealanders of European descent and the Maori population; the Maori tend to know less. However, this is not the case for the Ngāi Tahu, and one explanation offered for this finding is the fact that Ngāi Tahu have promoted a series of programs aimed to increase financial literacy and saving. A description of Whai Rawa, their matched saving initiative, is provided on the web page noted at the end of this post. The meeting at the University of Otago was about trying to measure the effectiveness of the new initiatives and changes in the well-being of this population over time.

It felt special to sit among this group. The meeting opened with the traditional Maori greetings, and much of the discussion and questions were led by one of the Ngāi Tahu representatives. He was just as one would expect a chief to be: charismatic, wise, and pragmatic. His questions to me were remarkably similar to the ones I often hear when I travel around the world: What is the business case for financial education? What works? and How do we know that it works? But there were major differences, too. The Ngāi Tahu’s planning horizon is very long. Their vision is “For us and our children after us” (Mō tātou,ā, mō kā uri ā muri ake nei). They feel strongly about their community and about sustainability of resources over time. I came away with not only a deeply felt respect for such foresight but also admiration for this capacity to lead and look ahead.

You may know about the Maori from the “haka,” or war dance, that the New Zealand rugby team performs before each game (if you have not seen it, you have got to watch the video posted below). I like the haka for many reasons. First, it shows how much the Maori traditions have been embraced by the population in general. Maori or not, every player in the rugby team plays the haka very seriously. Second, one wants to build up energy at the beginning of an important event. Third, it scares the hell out of the opposing team. And this brings me to my next topic: rugby! New Zealand is currently hosting the Rugby World Cup. Their national team is the All Blacks, and I spent a good part of my time in New Zealand watching rugby. The All Blacks are amazing players and I was glued to the TV for hours. On Sunday, I went to the stadium in Dunedin to watch Italy against Ireland. We (Italy) did not win, but we put up a good fight against the Irish; it was a good game. On the first leg of my trip back to the U.S. on Air New Zealand from Dunedin to Auckland, the flight safety video was done by the captain and the coach of the All Blacks and everything on the plane was about the All Blacks, including pictures of the players on the coffee cups. Believe me, they are irresistible! One advertisement said: “we are crazy about rugby.” Well, for a week I was too.

Kia ora.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Financial-Literacy-Center/119369231450239
http://www.ngaitahu.iwi.nz/News/2011/Whai-Rawa-Five-Years-of-Saving-Success.php
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6f3fvUvOiLQ&feature=related

Sunday 2 October 2011

Growing Slowly

The US economy is not going to get much worse. It will improve. But, it won't be like the economy in past years. Why?

Unemployment is here to stay and especially for those in the bottom half of the skill pool. The future will have a permanent unemployed part of the American population. The unemployed will survive by various "safety nets" funded by government. It is hard to see how they will ever be legally employable again in any great numbers.

The absence of work opportunities for the unemployed suggests that their children will be disadvantaged as well, since useful employment will not be a day-to-day feature of these households. The US will have a perpetual underclass, basically created by government fiat.

For the upper middle income and the rich, the "new economy" will seem much as before. Using "outsourcing" and technology, the wealthiest part of America will find a way to get by without the unskilled labor force that once had a home in this economy.

The rags to riches stories will be things of the past. Just as in modern day Europe, economic and social classes will be frozen, economic growth will move along at a snail's pace, and social and economic mobility will come to an end.

This unfortunate future is the result of pricing the low income part of the labor force out of the market. Business just cannot afford them anymore thanks to the blithering array of taxes, mandates, litigation fears. All of these things that government has decided to do to "help" workers, simply makes them toxic to employers. We've gone past the tipping point.

These obstacles that shackle poor folks are not that formidable for high income, highly skilled folks. Their incomes are high enough and their skill sets are high enough that they can still be employed -- at least for now.

One way to see what has happened is to imagine that the minimum wage has been raised to $ 50 per hour. Who then will get a job? Those with the skills that are worth more than $ 50 per hour to the employer. Everybody else is flat out of luck.

This doesn't mean that the economy can't grow. It can and will. Europe has grown and gotten used to the idea of double digit unemployment and a permanent underclass with no social and economic mobility. (Europe arrived at this situation by the simple expedient of passing laws that forbid companies to fire anyone). It has taken the US a bit longer to get to the "creeping stagnation" economy, but we're there now.

As the West slowly trudges along, Asia, Eastern Europe, Africa, Latin America and perhaps even the Arab world have a real chance to take over center stage in the world economy. The West has abdicated. It remains to be seen who will supplant the West -- most likely China and the countries on China's periphery.

All of this is why stocks are probably a pretty good bet. Some companies, indeed many oompanies, will do fine in the world that is coming. There will be growing demand from China, Brazil, India, and the rest of the world for products that the West has long taken for granted. This doesn't mean that stocks won't stumble a bit when the inevitable European sovereign defaults begin. But, the defaults are inevitable and everybody but Tim Geithner knows it. The real stock market bottom has probably already passed, but if hasn't, then wait until Greece, Spain, and Italy default and the German and French banks are nationalized and then buy stocks with a reckless abandon.

Monday 26 September 2011

A New Wrinkle

The latest scheme out of the European political class is the idea of creating an SPV (Special Purpose Vehicle) that will "leverage up" the $ 400 billion fund that had been previously put in place to "stabilize" the sovereign debt crisis. How will this work?

The idea is that you create this SPV (think Fund) and put $ 400 billion into it in the form of equity capital. The SPV then borrows $ 1.2 Trillion from willing bond buyers. That gives you $ 1.6 Trillion to buy up Greek, Spanish, and Italian debt and stave off disaster. So, the theory goes.

So who provides the $ 1.2 trillion in debt capital? That is, who are the willing bond buyers who think investing in a vehicle that buys trash will be a winner? If you thought Wall Street cooked up outrageous schemes, try this one on for size.

This idea will not work. It is not the magic elixir. No one in his right mind would provide the debt financing for this vehicle. The US, no doubt, will volunteer to put money into this. (We love throwing money away). But, the rest of the world will balk at this silly idea. The Chinese will not fall for this.

What this scheme shows is that the politicians still haven't figured out that defaults are inevitable. Only defaults have any real shot of turning the situation around in Europe. Politicians can only make things worse by these kinds of dreams and schemes.

Sunday 25 September 2011

Mind The Gap

The so-called income gap between rich and poor is growing we are told. The rich are "sharing disproportionately" in the economic gains we are told. What does this mean? Should we do something about it? If so, what should we do?

Imagine, that adopting "Policy A" would double the income of the poorest sixty percent of the population, but, at the same time, quadruple the income of the richest forty percent of the population? Suppose that there was simply no other feasible way to double the income of the poorest sixty percent? Would you favor implementing "Policy A?" After all, "Policy A" increases inequality. The dreaded "income gap" widens under "Policy A."

One way to eliminate income inequality -- eliminate the income gap -- is to force the entire citizenry to live at the edge of starvation. This is, more or less, the experiment that the Soviet Union embarked upon in 1917. How did that turn out? The Soviet Union successfully eliminated the "income gap."

Suppose "taxing millionaires and billionaires" meant that unemployment for the rest of us would rise to double digits and stay there for the next thirty years. Is it still worth it, so that we can make "the rich pay their fair share," even if such a policy would guarantee that large numbers of people cannot find jobs?

Why does anyone care about the income gap? The issue is not how to divide a fixed pie after all. The issue is how to grow the pie. Suppose our only concern is with people whose income and wealth puts them in the bottom 50 percent of the pile. It might be necessary to enrich a few folks in order improve the lot of the bottom 50 percent. Who cares if the rich get richer?

Isn't it the right policy to try to improve the lot of the poorest 50 percent of our population regardless of how rich the rest of the folks get? It just might turn out that income inequality is a by-product of improving the lot of the poorest folks in society and that deliberate policies to reduce inequality damage the economic prospects of the poorest half of the population. So, why the interest in the income gap?

What we should be concerned about are policies that improve the economic prospects of the half of the population with the lowest income and least amount of wealth. If improving the prospects of the less fortunate increases income and wealth inequality, so be it.

Friday 23 September 2011

If You Want Jobs, The Micro Environment Must Change

The regulatory and litigation environment virtually guarantees that job growth in the US will be anemic for years to come. No macro activities (or short term tax gimmicks) will change the employment picture.

The truth is: employers are scared to expand payrolls. They don't want to get sued; they don't want to take on future health care and retirement liabilities that are limitless; they don't want to deal with all of the extra costs that government has imposed on employers. The motives for all of this employee protection were no doubt noble.

The latest wrinkle is that Obama's "Job's Plan" permits the unemployed to sue a business that has the temerity to hire someone who already has a job elsewhere instead of hiring an unemployed person. Laws like that make employers leave the playing field. Who wants to hire anyone when the very act of taking on a new hire can trigger litigation that can put you out of business? Why can't the Obama folks get this?

Until the micro conditions of the labor market change (and no one is really discussing making these changes), the poor, the minorities, the less-educated have no real future in this economy other than collecting welfare checks and entitlement payments. Working for a living is increasingly not a likely possibility.

Obama and the liberal elite don't get this because they know nothing about hiring and why businesses hire people. None of the Obama people have any experience at all with business or with unemployment.

The Obama folks think that the solution is to have government build roads and patch up airports and transfer money to public employees. That is not the answer. The only people that benefit from stuff like that are highly paid union employees with rich retirement plans and generous health plans. They really don't need the government's help. They are riding high in this economy. Obama and his gang are riding high as well.

But, Americans that are least able to defend themselves -- lower middle income, minorities, the lower-skilled work force -- have no real chance in the economy that Obama and his crowd have created. Businesses are not going to hire employees that are "lawyered up" and ready to sue them. Why should they? The alternative is to outsource and to substitute capital for labor. That will continue.

We need micro changes. Even if the economy grows, the beneficiaries will not be the unemployed. Obama has seen to it that these folks have no real shot.

So, Why the Selloff?

Other than Obama's new(?) tax plan to tax "millionaires and billionaires," there wasn't much news to point to for an explanation of the nearly 8 percent drop in world equity markets from Tuesday at 2 PM until Thursday afternoon's market close.

Greece is old news and so is the weakness in the American economy. Nothing new on this front was announced prior to the selloff.

The equity markets seem to be stuck in a very wide trading range since early August. If so, the market probably rallies from here. My own guess continues to be that this is buying time for long term investors. This is not a time to be exiting equity markets, but a time to be planting a large foot into these markets.

It is scary. Government policies in western countries have been so absurd for so long that one despairs that things can ever be turned around. But, they can be and, I think, will be. Most Eurozone countries are going to default on their debt and a number of high-profile European banks have no hope of survival. Once these things happen, then we have a real chance for an economic revival.

As long as western politicians think there is some magic and painless solution to the debt crisis that avoids defaults, then economic stagnation will continue. But, the clock is ticking. Defaults will come whether politicians like it or not. The sooner the better.

So, it still makes sense to own equities -- perhaps more now than ever. Markets can see into the future and past unpleasant events. We will get there and get past all of this.

Monday 19 September 2011

The Obama Tax Plan

Obama will announce his new tax plan today -- more than $ 1.5 trillion in new taxes. Even a Democratically-controlled Congress wouldn't pass something like this in the middle of a recession. You have to wonder if Obama really cares at all. He is wasting everyone's time with proposals like this. He should go back to Martha's Vineyard.

Sunday 18 September 2011

It Won't Be Long Now

Goodbye Greece. We are getting into the fourth quarter on the Greece situation. The Germans are increasingly unlikely to continue the bailout game for domestic political reasons. Ditto for Greece. The Greeks are more likely to roll back their existing "austerity" measures than enact new ones. The game is just about over. Default is coming soon.

Then we look to Spain and Italy and watch that story unfold in much the same manner.

As If Things Weren't Bad Enough

Here comes the President -- one more time: "Tax the Millionaires and Billionaires." Same ole, same ole.

Hidden in his tax-the-rich proposal is the virtual elimination of the current municipal bond market, because the Obama proposal essentially eliminates tax exempt interest on municipal bonds. That should help our cities and states!

If the Obama package could pass, it would nail the coffin shut on any future American economic progress. We would become the new Japan with no real prospect for economic growth in the next half century. (That may happen anyway. Obama has done a lot of damage already).

Fortunately, no one is listening to Obama anymore and new taxes are not in the cards with a Republican House of Representatives.

All Obama signifies with the package to be released on Monday is his irrelevance. He doesn't understand the private sector, he doesn't understand the dynamics of the entitlement programs, and he doesn't seem to care anyway.

He's still having a good time in the White House. There are still a lot of parties to attend and fun things to do. That the country is collapsing economically is not something that Obama seems much bothered about.

Nothing new there.

Saturday 17 September 2011

Geithner and "Catastrophic"

Tim Geithner is an embarassment. He spent Friday in Poland lecturing European leaders on the necessity to increase the bailout fund for the bankrupt states of Greece, Spain, and Italy. According to Geithner, failure to expand the bailout fund and, implicitly, to let Greece (and Spain and Italy) to balloon their national debts to even greater heights, would be "catastrophic." Great idea! Add to the debts of Greece, Spain, and Italy! That's a novel way to solve the European debt crisis -- make it bigger.

Well, Geithner might respond, that's what we did in the US and look how wonderfully things are going there!

This is what happens when politicians think they can solve problems. They make the problems much bigger. This way when things collapse down the road, they won't be around to face the music. Europe will eventually implode. Geithner just doesn't want it to happen on his watch.

Unfortunately for the US, we are on "his watch" and the results are there for all to see -- economic stagnation.

It is embarrassing that the Obama Administration is still trying to pretend that more and more debt and more and more economic stagnation is the way to go. It makes one wonder what the real motive is here.

Thursday 15 September 2011

Geithner Selling His Failed Ideas to Europe

Tim Geithner will be in Poland tomorrow to sell his failed US 2008 program to Europe. Heck, maybe it will work this time. It certainly didn't work in the US, unless you think our situation is a good outcome.

All these folks can ever say is that it would been worse. Really? What makes you think that? Letting nature take its course without government interference has worked in every other situation. Only when the government intervenes to "fix things" such as the 1930s in the US and 1990s in Japan,and now the US in the Obama era, have economies failed to recover.

Europe is so far gone, it won't matter anyway. All Geither will be able to do is make certain that when the defaults start, Germany and France can be added to the list, because they are the ones that will have to underwrite this stupidity.

Oh, by the way, the Federal Reserve is stepping up too. That means the US, which is reeling from massive indebtedness, is now adding to its own woes by helping to backstop the idle Greeks. What a great idea!

You just couldn't make this stuff up. The idiots are running the asylum!

A Clueless White House

The White House released the following statement on Wednesday (Amy Brundage, White House spokesman):

"As the president has consistently said, he does not believe that Social Security is a driver of our near and medium term deficits."

How can the President of the United States be this misinformed on perhaps the most important issue facing the country?

Wednesday 14 September 2011

Geithner to the Rescue

Tim Geithner wasted a little more taxpayer money -- why not? -- going to Europe this week to have an important meeting with Germany's Angela Merkel to "convince" her how important it is that the Greek situation be contained. You really have to wonder about Tim Geithner. Does he really believe Greece is not going to default? How disconnected is this guy from reality? He still thinks his stimulus plan worked?

The lack of understanding of Economics in this White House is without parallel in American history. This White House not only doesn't know what to do, it doesn't even look like they care about whether the economy recovers or not. The so-called "Jobs Plan" is little more than transfer payments to Obama allies paid for, he says, by taxing "millionaires and billionaires," which apparently includes everyone who makes over $ 200,000 per year.

The sad fact is the folks below the median income are hit hardest by this White House. Those with protected jobs -- public school teachers, public employees, government bureaucrats of all stripes -- they're pretty happy. Their income hasn't fallen a bit. In fact their income has risen, while folks in the bottom half of the income spectrum have been savaged. Obama's war on lower middle incomes is bearing fruit -- massive long term unemployment, massive short term unemployment, and massive under-employment.

Maybe we should increase some of the old standards to get this economy going: 1) Raise the minimum wage to $ 100 per hour...that should raise living standards; 2) Why not let folks get six months a year paid sick leave...they might need it; 3) How about 100 days a year mandated family leave with pay; etc. etc. Heck if $ 7.25 is a good minimum, think how great $ 100 an hour would be. I can just imagine these kind of discussions going in the Obama White House.

Why not outlaw all pollution starting today? Why not mandate that all cars have to get 200 mpg starting next week? These are merely extensions in degree of the current Obama EPA actions. Heck, why not go for it, since we don't care one way or another about American jobs or the economy?

What about raising tax rates to 80 percent for all those rich people who make more than $ 75,000. That should bring in a lot of money. Lets eliminate corporate tax loopholes and raise corporate rates to 70 percent. That will solve our deficit problem.

All of these discussions are the kind that I suspect go on regularly in the Obama White House. They may seem extreme now, but we have gotten use to a lot of Obama stuff that would have seemed extreme ten years ago. Now we have nine percent unemployment; maybe we can double that number in two or three years. Why should people work anyway?

As goofy as all this sounds, it doesn't sound any goofier than what Obama and Geithner say regularly on the stump. No wonder the economy is moribund.

Tuesday 13 September 2011

Europe -- A Case Study in Why Government Is Not The Answer

So, where are we now in fixing the Greek debt crisis. Greek government debt maturing in March of 2012 is trading in the open market at 55 cents on the dollar, according to today's Wall Street Journal. The yield on two year Greek debt is now 75 percent, on 10 year paper 20 percent. So, the default has really already occurred. The fiscal deficit for Greece through the first eight months of the year is 22 percent higher than last year. Meanwhile, real GDP is likely to drop 10 percent this year as compared to a fall of 5 percent last year. So, where does it end? -- where it should have ended two years ago when Greek sovereign debt was a lot lower and European banks were in far, far better shape.

This impending disaster is a direct result of government policy. Merkel and Sarkozy in cahoots with the ECB (European Central Bank) have served up the myth that somehow they could avert a Greek default through politics. We now see the results of their efforts -- economic disaster for Greece and the weakening of the entire European financial structure. So much for bailouts.

Think of how regulation is faring. Why would European banks be in trouble if they are marking their positions to market, as liberal politicians claim regulators will force them to do. Actually, liberal politicians are forcing these banks to mis-mark their positions so as to foster the illusion that they are in good shape. Yesterday, these European banks shed between four and ten percent of their value in a single trading session and most are down more than sixty percent in value value this year. Way to go regulators!! If you have properly marked your bond positions, then why not just sell them? That shouldn't change your net worth at all since you have already marked them to market. But, no. The regulators know best. Now, they are forcing the banks to publicly lie about the value of their holdings. Wow! Isn't that great. Good to see the regulators doing their job.

But, meanwhile, the markets are not fooled by the regulators and the politicians. The markets are showing the way and the way is down for European sovereign debt and down for the European banking system. Had the market simply been permitted to work its will two years ago and let Greece default, we would have only minor problems today with the Euro and with European banking. But, no, politicians and central bankers had to take center stage, repeating the same mistakes that American policy makers made in the fall of 2008. These folks never learn.

Take a lesson from the Asian Crisis of 1997, which was first and foremost a debt crisis. What happened? Fortunately, the IMF was unable to be a backstop or a bailout source for that crisis. So what happened? The crisis ended naturally by 1998 and by 2000 Asia was back and roaring ahead. Why didn't Asia stagnate like the US did after 2008 and Europe is now? Because no one bailed them out. Three cheers for "no policy." "No policy" works.

What doesn't work is government policy. It doesn't work in the US and we are watching government policy turn a minor crisis in European sovereign debt into a major conflagration. When will we learn?

Sunday 11 September 2011

Advice to rookies

If you’re a regular reader of my blog, you’ll know that I have become a football fan. People change over the course of their life and pick up new hobbies and interests. For me, it’s football. So this Sunday, I watched the Ravens score a crushing victory against the Steelers. It was a beautiful game! I also watched the kickoff last Thursday. Two games in a week; that is pretty good for a rookie fan, no?

In this new season, with rookie players on their field for their first games, there is an abundance of discussions and articles about these newcomers. In the New York Times yesterday, there was an article about finance and financial advice to the rookies. The link to the article “Financial Lessons from Sports Stars’ Mistakes” is at the end of this post.

As I have mentioned in previous posts, the statistics about football players mismanaging their money are pretty staggering. The article mentioned several star athletes who have had brushes with bankruptcy: Michael Vick (recently acquired by the Philadelphia Eagles); Bernie Kosar, formerly of the Cleveland Browns; and Mark Brunell of the New York Jets.

Some have argued that the behavior of football players is similar to those who win the lottery. Flushed with large sums of money that come to them suddenly, players squander it and are left with little or nothing a few years out. I do not think that this is a good analogy. One difference between football players and lottery players is that we know the former are very talented people: Who else could do the things they do when they are out in the field? Moreover, these people know discipline; they show up to practice every day. They also know the correlation between efforts and outcome; if one works steadily at something, he will get better. These are great skills that can be applied not only to playing football but also to managing money.

So, why do we see players going bankrupt? One of the reasons why people (including football players) make mistakes is because they lack financial knowledge. This problem can be particularly acute for young, inexperienced people whose highest earnings are concentrated at the beginning of their career. But this is not an impossible problem to fix, and the New York Times article outlined a set of lessons that could be learned from some players’ mistakes.

I have three pieces of advice for rookies. (There is more advice to give, but let me start with this simple list; I will follow up in future posts.)

1) Do not spend it all. The career of football players is short and risky; you want and need to have provisions for the future and for uncertain events. An example? The recent lockout. What would have happened if the lockout had continued? Another example? Even superstars have injuries and/or cannot play for health reasons. Peyton Manning, for example, just had neck surgery.

2) Take it in your hands. Money management is too important and too personal to be delegated entirely to someone else. You are the one who knows your needs, your aversion to or love of risk, your objectives for the future. If you leave it to others to manage your money, chances are they will not make the decisions you had wished for. Even if you seek financial advice, rely on reputable experts and stay involved in the process. After all, it is your future that is at stake here.

3) Be humble about finance. My research repeatedly shows that the majority of people are overconfident about what they know of finance. Four out of five Americans gave themselves high financial knowledge ratings but, when asked questions about basic concepts, they answered incorrectly. And ignorance hurts. Study after study documents that it is those with low financial knowledge who pay more for financial services and who are more likely to end up in financial distress. Do not be afraid to speak up about what you do not know; it is not a weakness, it is a strength, and you will intimidate anyone around you when you admit it. Most people do not have that kind of courage. Do not jump into projects or investments you do not understand well. Tell people around you, “I want to be smart about my money.” Over time, you will be.

When I got my first job as an assistant professor at Dartmouth College about twenty years ago, I showed up in the Human Resources office and was given all of these forms to fill out, requiring me to indicate which of the three pension providers I wanted and how I would allocate my pension money. I remember feeling puzzled that such an important decision would be asked of me without inquiring about my knowledge and whether I needed any help. Throughout the years, I have worked to change that process and, with the collaboration of some great people at Dartmouth’s HR office, there are now programs in place to help new hires. I take a little pride in that.

The NYT article is posted here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/10/your-money/financial-lessons-from-sports-stars-mistakes-your-money.html?pagewanted=all