Category Archives: Investment

Historic Debt will lead to Inflation

I’ve talked about the debt and inflation before, but the following might scare you:

Although the level of deficit is the largest in history, it is not the largest when measured as a percentage of GDP. The current deficit is about 4.3% of GDP. This is high by historic standards, but has been exceeded in 6 of the fiscal years since 1962. BUT the private sector is larger than it has ever been, and issuing more debt than ever before. Total $US debt when combining private and public debt is about $35 trillion, or 300% of GDP.

Don’t think that inflation is soley a function of public debt. No, foreign investment is a competition among all capital securities, and it is net US debt interest owed as a percentage of GDP (as well as US GDP as a percentage of global production, and other factors) that underly inflation.

Do Deficits Matter? Does Inflation Matter?

Yes. Deficits cause inflation.

National debt is one of the most important factors that determines the value of the US dollar and international confidence in American investments. With extensive history and other nations as examples, we clearly see that as the debt gets bigger, we will risk higher inflation, not be able to buy as many foreign goods, and see less international interest in our stock markets.

This fiscal year’s $477 billion deficit (Oct 1, 2003 – Oct 1, 2004) is the largest in US history.

Federal Budget Surplus or Deficit

Although the level of deficit is the largest in history, it is not the largest when measured as a percentage of GDP. The current deficit is about 4.3% of GDP. This is high by historic standards, but has been exceeded in 6 of the fiscal years since 1962.

Data source: http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0

If you are wealthy

We all like tax cuts that put money into our pockets today, but these tax cuts impact income, not wealth. Inflation, on the other hand, is a tax on wealth. If you are wealthy, then inflation will cost you a great deal in terms of spending power. You will be pushed into equity investments because fixed income and cash are hurt by inflation and rising interest rates. If you would be hurt by inflation, then deficits are your enemy.

If you are in debt

Inflation decreases the value of wealth and debt. Those who have money can buy less with it, and those who are in debt find it easier to pay off. This discounting of old wealth makes the “real” distribution of wealth less concentrated. It brings us all closer to each other by bringing us all closer to zero. If you are in debt, then inflation will reduce the burden, making it easier to pay off. If you are in debt, then inflation and deficits are your friend.

A Briefing on US Energy

Quotes below are from the Energy Information Administration of the US Department of Energy.

“The United States of America is the world’s largest energy producer, consumer, and net importer. It also ranks eleventh worldwide in reserves of oil, sixth in natural gas, and first in coal.”

The US is becoming increasingly dependent on imported oil compared to domestic sources. Over the last 20 years as demand has risen and US production has fallen, crude oil imports have increased to make up the difference.

“Total 2004 petroleum demand is projected to grow by 420,000 barrels per day, or 2.1%, to an average 20.4 million barrels per day.”

“The United States averaged total gross oil (crude and products) imports of an estimated 12.2 MMBD during 2003, representing around 62% of total U.S. oil demand.”

“With the rebound in world oil prices since March 1999, U.S. crude production fell slightly in 2002 and 2003, and is now at 50-year lows.”

US Strategic Petroleum Reserves (SPR) have been increasing as US production is decreasing and prices are rising.

“In mid-November 2001, President Bush directed the Department of Energy (DOE) to fill the SPR to its capacity of 700 million barrels in order to ‘maximize long-term protection against oil supply disruptions.'”

But while our oil is increasingly coming from foreign sources, oil is shrinking as a percentage of our economic picture. Demand for oil is increasing at a slower rate than US GDP. Accordingly, emissions follow this pattern.

“U.S. carbon emissions per dollar of GDP have been declining steadily since at least 1980.”

This is an important trend because the US environmental impact is a growing point of international pressure.

“The United States, with the world’s largest economy, is also the world’s largest single source of anthropogenic (human-caused) greenhouse gas emissions.”

“On March 27, 2001, the Bush administration declared that the United States had “no interest” in implementing or ratifying the Kyoto treaty limiting greenhouse gas emissions, but that it would pursue other ways of addressing the climate change issue.”

This rejection was not completely in denial of the international environmental issues, though.

“In February 2002, the Bush Administration released its proposed alternative to the Kyoto Treaty, calling for significant reductions in emissions of various pollutants (mercury, nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide). The program, known as the “Clear Skies Initiative,” would utilize a “cap and trade” system which would allow companies to trade emissions credits. In addition, the Bush Administration envisions reductions in U.S. “greenhouse gas intensity” — the amount of greenhouse gases emitted per dollar of GDP — by 18% over 10 years.”

This proposed alternative is likely to be achievable because the trends of GDP growth and U.S. carbon emissions growth have been in place since 1980.

For the electric power sector, coal-fired plants accounted for 53% of generation, nuclear 21%, natural gas 15%, hydroelectricity 7%, oil 3%, geothermal and “other” 1%.”

Surprisingly, electricity demand is shrinking relative to the economy as well. GDP is growing faster than electricity demand.

“Total U.S. annual electricity demand grew only slightly — about 0.8% — during 2003. For 2004, electricity demand is expected to increase about 2% from 2003 levels, driven by accelerated growth in the economy and weather-related increases in the first and the fourth quarters.”

And even though GDP per kilowatthour is growing, electricity prices have not reflected that change.

“Electricity prices in the United States fell every year between 1993 and 1999, but this trend reversed in 2000, 2001, and 2003.”

The Myth of Negative Sentiment

Today’s article in Barrons: “The Myth of Negative Sentiment” took the position that negative sentiment in the investor community is a myth, and that the media is unnecessarily sugarcoating economic problems.

I think the article missed the point.

The sugarcoating is not for the investor crowd, it is for everyone else. Investors stand to do well as we move toward an “ownership society“, but the non-investor class is disenfranchised and falling further behind. I’m talking about the concentration of wealth and the distribution of consumption.

The article talks about how investors are heavily invested in equities rather than cash, and how this is a signal of investor optimism. This is true; it is because dividend and capital gains rates have been cut in half (or more) and interest rates on cash accounts are almost zero. Why hold cash when the yield curve is steep and tax rates are so favorable? After-tax investment returns look very promising.

But if you live paycheck-to-paycheck (Barron’s readers might not have any contact with these people…) then your prospects are grim. In the past, debtors could count on inflation to depreciate their past sins. But these days, deflation threatens to put them deeper in debt while giving the wealthy more buying power. Meanwhile social services are being cut and the lions share of tax breaks are going to people making capital gains and receiving dividend income. For them, the whole country is becomming a company town.

The issue is not negative sentiment on the part of investors, but rather social depression. And that is no myth.

Retirement savings reform

Company sponsored retirement programs are costly to administer, and provide employment benefits in the form of tax reduction. By providing employment benefits in this manner, government is subsidizing the businesses that submit to the administrative costs. Large companies can more easily afford this administrative cost. The intention to reward workers becomes a reward for working in a larger organization. When workers change or lose their jobs, they must transfer their 401(k)s and in some cases (when they are hired by a small firm or are not immediately re-hired) are no longer eligible for tax advantaged retirement savings. This compounds the pain of unemployment by effectively increasing the person’s tax rate. Finally, 401(k) rollovers have created an entire bureaucratic industry, tapping the productive force of many bright and hard-working people.

There is a simple solution: Replace 401(k) plans by increasing the amount all individuals can contribute to their traditional IRAs. And if a company chooses to administer it, a percentage of every check could be directly deposited. This change would help to level the economic playing field for small American businesses, eliminate the harsh tax penalty upon unemployment, and simplify the financial accounts of most working Americans. 401(k) plans can already be rolled into IRAs, so conversion from legacy policies would be painless.

What about the government’s intention to reward workers? The financial incentive of a pay check is designed to be just that, but additional reward might include a federal income tax holiday for the first $50k in earned income, for example.

Special cases of inconvenience and frustration are many, I’m sure, but consider the case of a married couple, both of whom work. One employer provides a 401(k) plan and the other does not. Saving equally, the person with a 401(k) takes home more money. This means that in order to save equally, one person is structurally required to subsidize the other. Adding structural financial conflict into marriage should be avoided as a matter of policy.