The Inequality Puzzle | Lawrence H. Summers

Larry Summers exposes the flaw in Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Piketty argues that inequality is rising because the rate of return on capital is higher than the economy’s growth rate.

Does not the rising share of profits in national income in most industrial countries over the last several decades prove out Piketty’s argument? Only if one assumes that the only factors at work are the ones he emphasizes. Rather than attributing the rising share of profits to the inexorable process of wealth accumulation, most economists would attribute both it and rising inequality to the working out of various forces associated with globalization and technological change. For example, mechanization of what was previously manual work quite obviously will raise the share of income that comes in the form of profits. So does the greater ability to draw on low-cost foreign labor.

Correlation does not imply causation. The fact that two events occur together does not prove that one has caused the other.

Summers also addresses whether returns on capital are largely reinvested:

A brief look at the Forbes 400 list also provides only limited support for Piketty’s ideas that fortunes are patiently accumulated through reinvestment. When Forbes compared its list of the wealthiest Americans in 1982 and 2012, it found that less than one tenth of the 1982 list was still on the list in 2012, despite the fact that a significant majority of members of the 1982 list would have qualified for the 2012 list if they had accumulated wealth at a real rate of even 4 percent a year. They did not, given pressures to spend, donate, or misinvest their wealth. In a similar vein, the data also indicate, contra Piketty, that the share of the Forbes 400 who inherited their wealth is in sharp decline.

That income inequality is rising is undisputed, but the causes are not as simple as Piketty assumes. His proposal of a progressive tax on wealth is unlikely to see the light of day: the history of inheritance taxes is an indication of their ineffectiveness. But a shift away from income taxes towards land taxes and other flat rate, indirect taxes would provide a significant boost to the economy as illustrated by the following chart from the Henry Review.

Marginal welfare loss from a small increase in selected Australian taxes

Marginal welfare loss is the loss in consumer welfare per dollar of revenue raised for a small increase in each tax (the extent of compensation required to restore consumer satisfaction reflects the distorting effect of the tax on the economy). A decrease in the level of tax, on the other hand, would be likely to produce a similar-sized benefit. So a trade off between taxes at the top of the scale and those at the bottom would be expected to deliver a substantial net benefit.

Read more at Lawrence H. Summers for Democracy Journal: The Inequality Puzzle.

ASX 200 signals advance

A monthly chart of the ASX 200 also gives a clearer perspective of market direction. Breakout above 5450 signals an advance while follow-through above 5550 would confirm a target of 6000*. A 13-week Twiggs Money Flow trough above zero is promising, but needs to be strengthened by a breakout above the descending trendline. Reversal below the secondary rising trendline on the index chart is unlikely, but would warn of a test of the primary trendline.

ASX 200

* Target calculation: 5500 + ( 5500 – 5000 ) = 6000

ASX 200 VIX below 12 indicates low risk typical of a bull market.

ASX 200

Is the market overpriced? Episode II

Using Warren Buffett’s favorite broad market valuation metric of market capitalisation over GDP*, we can see valuations are on the high side, near to levels from early 2006, but nowhere near the alarming bubble of two years later. The Dotcom bubble (not shown) was even more severe.

NYSE Market Cap/Nominal GNP

*I have used GNP (or GNI as some call it) as this more accurately includes offshore income.

Australian investors will be relieved to find the ASX, at 100, reflects fair value. Even if we ignore the 2007 property/resources bubble.

ASX Market Cap/Nominal GNP

No Alan, more income tax is not the answer | MacroBusiness

Leith van Onselen comments on Alan Kohler’s support for a proposed debt levy:

The first best solution is to shift Australia’s tax base away from productive enterprise (both individuals and companies) towards more efficient sources, such as land, resources and consumption. According to the Henry Tax Review, the marginal excess burden (i.e. the loss in consumer welfare relative to the net gain in government revenue) from the GST is just 8%, whereas it is near zero for taxes on land and resources. They also compare very favourably against the two biggest current sources of tax revenue – personal income tax (24% marginal excess burden) and company taxes (40% marginal excess burden) – offering the nation large productivity pay-offs from fundamental tax reform.

Read more at No Mr Kohler, more income tax is not the answer | | MacroBusiness.

ASX 200 breakout

The ASX 200 broke resistance at 5500, signaling a primary advance to 5800*. A 13-week Twiggs Money Flow trough above zero indicates buying pressure. Reversal below 5450 is unlikely, but would warn of a correction.

ASX 200

* Target calculation: 5400 + ( 5400 – 5000 ) = 5800

Aussie strong despite ASX

The ASX 200 broke its rising trendline and short-term support to signal a correction. Declining 21-day Twiggs Money Flow indicates short-term selling pressure (a trough that respects zero would be a bullish sign). Breach of 5290/5300 would warn of a test of primary support at 5050. Failure of primary support is unlikely, but would signal a down-trend. Recovery above 5460 is also unlikely at present, but would signal a fresh advance.

ASX 200

* Target calculation: 5450 + ( 5450 – 5300 ) = 5600

ASX 200 VIX is rising, but continues to indicate low risk typical of a bull market.

ASX 200

The Aussie Dollar remains strong, consolidating at $0.94 despite ASX weakness. Bullish divergence on 13-week Twiggs Momentum signals a primary up-trend, but we may see the RBA intervene to prevent this. The RBA may need to follow the RBNZ, with macro-prudential controls, to take the steam out of the housing market (setting a maximum LVR percentage, for example) if further rate cuts become necessary.

Aussie Dollar

* Target calculation: 0.93 + ( 0.93 – 0.91 ) = 0.95

Murray must target ‘intermediation’ | InvestorDaily

Compulsory and tax-advantaged superannuation has the effect of inflating funds flowing into the financial sector, said the submission [to the Financial System Inquiry].

“We note an emerging body of research concluding that beyond a threshold level, financial sector size and growth have a negative association with stability, economic growth and productivity,” Regnan said.

Read more at Murray must target 'intermediation' – InvestorDaily.

Markets warn of correction

Before we examine the US and Australian markets, please take a look at the two charts below and tell me whether the trend is up or down. If you have a five-year old or six-year old handy, try asking them.

S&P 500

And the second one:

ASX 200

The trend on both is clear. If we invert the charts, you will recognize the S&P 500:

S&P 500

The S&P 500 breach of support at 1840 warns of a secondary correction and a sharp fall on 13-week Twiggs Money suggests selling pressure similar to the correction in late 2012. But the primary trend is up.

Likewise the ASX 200. The index retreated from 5500 and follow-through below 5380 would warn of a secondary correction. But 13-week Twiggs Money Flow oscillating above zero indicates buying pressure and the primary trend remains upward.

ASX 200

Momentum stocks are experiencing a sell-off, but our strategy is to hold existing positions. Attempting to time entries and exits in secondary corrections erodes performance. None of our market filters indicate elevated risk and we are confident that this is a bull market.

Are we in a bull market?

A simple reflection of the weekly trend on major markets using Ichimoku Cloud. Candles above the cloud indicate an up-trend, below the cloud indicates a down-trend, while in the cloud reflects uncertainty. From West to East:
S&P 500
S&P 500
Footsie
FTSE 100
DAX
DAX
ASX 200
ASX 200
Nikkei 225 is testing primary support at 14000 and looks a bit weaker
Nikkei 225
While China is holding above primary support at 1950/2000 but shows no clear trend
Shanghai Composite

Overall, there is a strong case for a bull market.

Big Banks to Get Higher Capital Requirement – WSJ.com

Stephanie Armour and Ryan Tracy discuss the new leverage ratio that the eight biggest US lenders will be required to meet:

The eight bank-holding companies would have to hold loss-absorbing capital worth at least 5% of their assets to avoid limits on rewarding shareholders and paying bonuses, and their FDIC-insured bank subsidiaries would have to keep a minimum leverage ratio of at least 6% or face corrective actions. That is higher than the 3% agreed upon under global standards, which U.S. regulators have seen as too weak.

[FDIC Chairman Maurice] Gruenberg said leaving the leverage ratio at 3% for large banks “would not have meaningfully constrained leverage during the years leading to the crisis.” He said the rule “may be the most significant step we have taken to reduce the systemic risk posed by these large complex banking organizations.”

Banks are pushing back against the new ratios required by the Fed, FDIC and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

Banks have balked at the leverage ratio, saying it will curtail lending and saddle them with more costs that leave them at a competitive disadvantage against foreign banks with lower capital requirements. Banks will have to hold that capital as protection for every loan, security and asset they hold, not just those deemed risky.

As a general rule, share capital is more expensive than debt, but that may not be the case with highly leveraged banks if you remove the too-big-to-fail taxpayer subsidy. Improved capital ratios would lower the risk premium associated with both the cost of capital and the cost of debt, offering a competitive advantage over foreign banks with higher leverage.

I would like to see APRA impose a similar minimum on Australia’s big four banks which currently range between 4% and 5%.

Read more at Big Banks to Get Higher Capital Requirement – WSJ.com.