Economy Archives - Page 72 of 136 - the patient investor

May 19, 2014

Where are the Budget alternatives? | | MacroBusiness

Hats off to Leith van Onselen for his perceptive comments on Australia’s current budget stoush:

The point is, it’s fine to oppose Budget savings if you can provide an alternative plan to cut expenditure and/or raise taxes. But simply opposing measures without providing alternatives, as has been done by the opposition parties, ignores the very real structural pressures facing the Budget from falling commodity prices and an ageing population….

Some low hanging fruit that could be targeted by the opposition parties as alternatives to budgetary reform could include closing Australia’s more egregious tax expenditures – including overly generous superannuation concessions (which mostly benefit the wealthy), quarantining negative gearing so that losses from an asset can only be claimed against income from that same asset, removing the capital gains discount on investments, and removing tax concessions on company cars – as well as abolishing Abbott’s paid parental leave scheme.

Reforms to these areas alone would save many billions of dollars and improve equity in the process.

May 19, 2014

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.

April 30, 2014

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.

April 26, 2014

Fractional reserve banking: ‘the chief loose screw’ | House of Debt

By Atif Mian and Amir Sufi quote from The Chicago Plan (1933-1939) of which Irving Fisher was a strong supporter:

“A chief loose screw in our present American money and banking system is the requirement of only fractional reserves behind demand deposits. Fractional reserves give our thousands of commercial banks power to increase or decrease the volume of our circulating medium [money] by increasing or decreasing bank loans and investments. The banks thus exercise what has always, and justly, been considered a prerogative of sovereign power. As each bank exercises this power independently without any centralized control, the resulting changes in the volume of the circulating medium are largely haphazard. This situation is a most important factor in booms and depressions.”

April 13, 2014

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.

April 13, 2014

Disturbing trends with financial crises

From the Economist:

Five devastating slumps—starting with America’s first crash, in 1792, and ending with the world’s biggest, in 1929—highlight two big trends in financial evolution. The first is that institutions that enhance people’s economic lives, such as central banks, deposit insurance and stock exchanges, are not the products of careful design in calm times, but are cobbled together at the bottom of financial cliffs. Often what starts out as a post-crisis sticking plaster becomes a permanent feature of the system. If history is any guide, decisions taken now will reverberate for decades.

This makes the second trend more troubling. The response to a crisis follows a familiar pattern. It starts with blame. New parts of the financial system are vilified: a new type of bank, investor or asset is identified as the culprit and is then banned or regulated out of existence. It ends by entrenching public backing for private markets: other parts of finance deemed essential are given more state support. It is an approach that seems sensible and reassuring. But it is corrosive. Walter Bagehot, editor of this newspaper between 1860 and 1877, argued that financial panics occur when the “blind capital” of the public floods into unwise speculative investments. Yet well-intentioned reforms have made this problem worse.

…..To solve this problem means putting risk back into the private sector. That will require tough choices. Removing the subsidies banks enjoy will make their debt more expensive, meaning equity holders will lose out on dividends and the cost of credit could rise. Cutting excessive deposit insurance means credulous investors who put their nest-eggs into dodgy banks could see big losses…..

Read more at Financial crises | The Economist.

April 8, 2014

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%.

April 6, 2014

Market sell-off despite improved job numbers

The market experienced a strong sell-off Friday, despite signs that the Winter slowdown in job creation is over. Nelson Schwartz at the New York Times writes:

The latest numbers are likely to be revised significantly as more information flows into the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Even so, they suggest that the economy is not achieving what economists call escape velocity, something that policy makers have long sought. Neither is it falling into the rut some pessimists feared was developing early in 2014.

The S&P 500 retreated below its latest support level of 1880. Follow-through below 1840 would signal a correction, while respect of support would suggest an advance to 1950*. Bearish divergence on 21-day Twiggs Money Flow continues to warn of medium-term selling pressure and reversal below zero would strengthen the signal. An early correction (without a decent advance above the January high) would be a bearish sign, indicating that long-term sellers outnumber buyers.

S&P 500

* Target calculation: 1850 + ( 1850 – 1750 ) = 1950

CBOE Volatility Index (VIX) at 14 continues to indicate low risk typical of a bull market.

VIX Index

The Nasdaq 100 indicates long-term selling pressure, with a sharp fall following bearish divergence on 13-week Twiggs Money Flow. Breach of the (secondary) rising trendline and support at 3550 warns of a correction to primary support at 3400. Recovery above 3650 is unlikely, but would suggest a bear trap.

Nasdaq 100

* Target calculation: 3750 + ( 3750 – 3550 ) = 3950

The primary trend remains upward and none of our market filters indicate signs of stress.

March 27, 2014

Andreas Dombret: What is going on in Europe? The view from within

From a speech by Dr Andreas Dombret, Member of the Executive Board of the Deutsche Bundesbank, at the New York Stock Exchange, New York, 26 March 2014:

How do we get to the end of the tunnel?

At the European level, the most important project is the banking union. The banking union is most certainly the biggest step since the introduction of the euro. And it is the most logical step to take. A single currency requires integrated financial markets and this includes the supervision of banks.

Consequently, one of the pillars the banking union rests upon is a Single Supervisory Mechanism – that is European bank supervision for the largest banks. Centralising supervisory powers in such a way can foster a comprehensive and unbiased view upon banks. It also enables policy action that is not held hostage by national interests. Thus, it will contribute to more effective supervision and better cross-border cooperation and coordination.

March 27, 2014

Is the S&P 500 overvalued?

The daily press appears convinced the S&P 500 is overvalued and due for a crash. Yet the macro-economic and volatility filters that we use at Porter Capital and Research & Investment — to identify market risk so that we can move to cash when risks are elevated — show no signs of stress. So I have been delving into some of the aggregate index data, kindly provided by Standard and Poors, to see whether some of their arguments hold water.

The Price-Earnings ratio for the S&P 500 itself is not excessive when compared to the last decade.

The bears argue, however, that earnings are unsustainable. One reason advanced for this is that earnings growth has outstripped sales, with corporations focusing on the bottom line rather than business growth.

Faced with weak domestic demand, large US corporates have actively sought to manage their expenses so as to meet and exceed the market’s expectations. Combined with the unwinding of provisions taken in the GFC, cost management has allowed US corporates to achieve a 124% increase in 12-month trailing earnings off the back of a 25% increase in 12-month trailing sales since October 2009.
~ Elliott Clarke, Westpac

That may be so, but any profit increase would look massive if compared to earnings in 2009. When we plot earnings against sales (per share), it tells a different story. Earnings as a percentage of sales is in the same band (7% – 9%) as 2003 to 2006. A rise above 9% would suggest that earnings may not be sustainable, but not if they continue in their current range.

The second reason advanced is that business investment is falling. Westpac put up a chart that shows US equipment investment growth is close to zero. But we also need to consider that accelerated tax write-offs led to a surge in investment in 2009/2010. The accelerated write-offs expired, but the level of investment merely stopped growing and has not fallen as I had expected.

Private (non-residential) fixed investment as a whole is rising as a percentage of GDP, not falling.

Lastly, when we compare the S&P 500 to underlying net asset value per share, it shows how frothy the market was before the Dotcom crash, with the index trading at 5 times book value. That kind of premium is clearly unsustainable without double-digit GDP growth, which was never going to happen. But the current ratio of below 2.50 is modest compared to the past decade and quite sustainable.

I am not saying that everything is rosy — it never is — but if sales and earnings continue to grow apace, and with private fixed investment rising, the current price-earnings ratio does not look excessive.