Foreclosure Filings Continue to Rise
…
last week the Mortgage Bankers Association reported that about 2.47 percent of home mortgages were in foreclosure during the first quarter of the year, almost double the 1.28 percent rate of a year earlier, and the highest point since the group began compiling such figures in 1979. A Credit Suisse report this spring predicted that 6.5 million loans will fall into foreclosure over the next five years, reaching more than 8 percent of all U.S. homes.
There numbers really are astounding. How lame were the decisions of banks and mortgagees that nearly 1 in 40 mortgages are in default (and that number likely increasing in the next year to much more?
Related: Homes Entering Foreclosure at Record (Sep 2007) - Homes Entering Foreclosure at Record - Ignorance of Many Mortgage Holders
What’s the real federal deficit? by Dennis Cauchon, 2006
…
The audited financial statement - prepared by the Treasury Department - reveals a federal government in far worse financial shape than official budget reports indicate, a USA Today analysis found. The government has run a deficit of $2.9 trillion since 1997, according to the audited number. The official deficit since then is just $729 billion.
…
The new Medicare prescription-drug benefit alone would have added $8 trillion to the government’s audited deficit. That’s the amount the government would need today, set aside and earning interest, to pay for the tens of trillions of dollars the benefit will cost in future years.
Standard accounting concepts say that $8 trillion should be reported as an expense. Combined with other new liabilities and operating losses, the government would have reported an $11 trillion deficit in 2004 - about the size of the nation’s entire economy.
The federal government also would have had a $12.7 trillion deficit in 2000 because that was the first year that Social Security and Medicare reported broader measures of the programs’ unfunded liabilities. That created a one-time expense.
The continued attempts by politicians to distract from the huge taxes they are voting to place on our children and grandchildren is disheartening. And the continued actions that are the equivilent of getting another credit card when they spend so much that even the “official” books that they have exceeded the allowable total federal debt that is damaging the economy. They need to learn how to live within the current taxes they collect just as people need to learn to live within their earning. Either that fails to do so mortgages their future.
Related: Politicians Again Raising Taxes On Your Children - USA Federal Debt Now $516,348 Per Household - Washington’s Funny Accounting - Lobbyists Keep Tax Off Billion Dollar Private Equities Deals and On For Our Grandchildren - Failed Leadership: Estate Tax Repeal
Half of Gen X Doesn’t Expect to Retire
…
“They are earning money and paying into Social Security and yet they fear they may never see the payback,” said Moloney. “They feel they deserve it, but it looks like a financial black hole to them right now.”
The government certainly is failing to pay for future obligations today instead choosing to raise taxes on the future. But Social Security itself is actually in better shape than most think. We really do need to move out the benefit payment date (when it began projected life expectancy was almost the same as the date payments would start - which would mean moving the retirement date more than 15 years later, I believe). Going that far is not needed but it should be moved back. But really social security is in good shape for 30 years or more. First, it isn’t going to go from good shape to failed in a day. And second, they will make adjustments as they have in the past to make it work (the adjustment they made in the last 15 years helped a great deal so now they can just add some additional delays in when it starts paying out… and extend the good condition of Social Security without too much trouble).
Medicare is the huge problem. The country either needs to stop paying an extra 50-80% for health care than other countries do (and thus reduce the cost of Medicare liabilities) or massively cut benefits or massively increase taxes. Likely a combination of all 3.
Read more
What Should You Do With a Check Out of the Blue?
The USA government is sending out checks to taxpayers in an effort to encourage spending which in turn will provide stimulus to the economy in the very short term. First, this is bad policy in my opinion. Second, if you support this policy the precondition is you run surpluses in order to pay for it when you want to carry out such a policy. They have not, instead they have run huge deficits. What they have chosen to do is spend huge amounts and have the taxes paid by the children and grandchildren of those the politicians are spending the money on today. I would support Keynesian government spending in a serious recession or depression - just not for a country already with enormous debts and in a very mild recession.
But ok, so the government chooses to spend your children’s taxes foolishly, what should you do now? This is very easy. Whatever is the wisest move for your personal financial situation for any windfall you receive, regardless of the source of that windfall. If all your savings needs are met there is nothing wrong with buying some toy. But most people need to pay off debt, build an emergency fund, save for retirement or something similar not get another toy. Of course would be nothing wrong with donating it Kiva, Trickle Up, the Concord Coalition or your favorite charity.
The politicians are acting like a 5 year old that wants a new toy. I can too get the new toy now :-O, Mommy you can use your credit card. So what if you already bought me so many toys you couldn’t afford by using your other credit cards and they won’t lend you any more money. Just get another one. Similar to how congress recently yet again increased the allowable federal debt limit to over $9,000,000,000,000.
The stimulus effect of spending is that if you actually purchase a new toy (say a TV), then the store needs to replace that TV so the factory makes another TV… The store, shipper, factory, supplier to the factory all pay staff to carry this out, those staff can buy new books, dishwasher… and the business may buy a new forklift or computer to keep up…
Read more
I think a country that is more than $500,000 in debt per household should not send out checks to taxpayers to try pretend they are doing something to help the economy. Just as I wouldn’t think some family with $20,000 in credit card debt should fix the problem by taking the family on a new credit card financed vacation. But if you are going to do so, then take Dan Ariely’s advice: Stimulus options should be tested first. His blog post on the topic, Do we know enough to give stimulus packages?
The next question, of course, is which delivery method to select. Here behavioral economics has been instructive as well. In particular, years of research have demonstrated over and over that our intuitions about the relative effectiveness of different approaches are often wrong. Given that the method of delivery could make a large difference, and given that our intuitions about their relative effectiveness could be wrong, what should we do?
One answer is to conduct an experiment, as this is the only method we have for testing what really works and what is likely to fail. In the same way that we force drug companies to test the efficacy of their drugs before rolling them onto the market, shouldn’t we ask the government to first test their ideas before they invest billions of dollars of our tax money on some stimulus packages?
Related: Politicians Again Raising Taxes On Your Children - Charge It to My Kids - Google: Experiment Quickly and Often
Great advice from Warren Buffett. He spoke to students at UTexas at Austin business school and one of the students, Dang Le, posted notes of the discussion online. The internet is great.
On diversification:
Great advice. Warren Buffett uses great concentration (little diversification) but you are not Warren Buffett.
…
Getting turned down by HBS [Harvard Business School] was one of the best things that could have happened to me, bad luck can turn out to be good.
…
We did an informal office survey by looking at the total tax footprint versus the total income. I earned 46 million and paid a tax rate of 17.5%. My rate was the lowest, the average was 33%, and my cleaning lady paid 40%. The system is tilted towards the rich. The Forbes 400 total net worth has gone from 220 billion to 1.54 trillion, an increase of 7-to-1. You see in legislature that there is lobbying carried on by the powerful over issues such as the estate tax and carried interest for private equity investments. We need to flatten income and payroll taxes, and those making under $30,000 shouldn’t be bothered.
It is hard to beat reading Warren Buffet’s ideas on investing and economics.
Related: Buffett on Taxes - The Berkshire Hathaway Meeting 2007 - Buffett’s 2006 Letter to Shareholders - Warren Buffett’s 2004 Annual Report - books on investing
The title of a recent article asks: Are you a sucker to invest in a 401(k)? The answer is an emphatic: No.
But what if instead you had bought that tax-efficient stock fund outside your plan? Wouldn’t your tax bill be lower? Yes, but that’s the wrong way to look at it. If you skip your 401(k) in favor of a taxable account, you must first shell out taxes on that $10,000, which leaves you with just $7,200 to invest (assuming the same 28% bracket).
Plus, over the next 20 years, you’ll have taxes on any dividends and gains the fund pays out. Even though you will get a lower 15% rate on your gains when you sell, you end up with $28,950, or about $4,600 less than with the 401(k). A tinier final tax bill can’t make up for having to pay taxes all along.
This is a very good short simple personal finance article. It explains an issue that might be tricky for some to understand. Those that read it can learn more about personal finance. And it has several points - some of which, I can imagine, might be hard for some to understand. But it does a good job of explaining things simply. And a few points, made well in the article, are often overlooked or under-appreciated:
tax rates will go up - we are passing higher taxes onto the future by not paying our bills now
the tax deferral is a huge benefit - often minimized when people discuss the benefits of IRAs
401(k) employer matches are another huge benefit
As I have said before, learning about personal finance is a long term effort. If you don’t understand everything in an article that is fine, over the years you want to learn more and more. Hopefully this is a useful step on that journey.
Related:
Roth IRAs a Smart bet for Younger Set - Saving for Retirement
In the USA Municipal bonds are issued by state and local governments and are exempt from federal tax. Therefor if you earn a 5% yield your after tax return is equal to that of a 7.5% yield if you are in the 33% federal tax bracket (7% * .67 = 5%). One way to invest in bonds is using a mutual fund (open or closed end funds). Right now the tax equivalent yields (compared to other bonds) of muni bonds are higher than normal.
Muni Bond Funds Offer High Yields, Tax Perks Dec, 2007:
…
With so many defaults going on in the mortgage arena, investors are worried that the insurers won’t be there to back up any munis that might get into trouble. A fair point, but the bond insurers are bolstering their own capital structures to deal with these concerns, and historically, as I said before, defaults in munis are few and far between.
Why are closed-end muni funds trading at a discount? Typical discounts today are about 10%, which is about as deep as such discounts have ever gotten on a historical basis. The typical discount is half that, or less. Closed-end muni funds sometimes even trade at a premium.
One explanation for the big discount might be the fact that many closed-end muni funds use leverage, in order to increase the tax-exempt returns they can offer investors. In the current credit crisis, leverage is seen as an inherently dangerous thing.
In general I find bonds to be a less desirable investment. Especially in the low yield environment recently (and really going back quite a few years). But for diversification some bonds can make sense for certain portfolios. Given the current tradeoffs (risk v. after tax yield) muni bonds certainly deserve consideration. I would shy away from long term bonds or funds (intermediate or short term) but of course every investor makes their own decisions.
Related: Roth IRA (another good tax smart investing tool) - what are bonds? - Alternative Minimum Tax
So yet again everyone in Washington DC wants to raise taxes on your children and grandchildren to spend money today. We might be going into a recession because the bubble of financing real estate led to people spending money they couldn’t pay back. So now home construction is decreasing, banks are having trouble meeting within capitalization requirement without huge inflows of capital from abroad, excess housing supply…
The government has been spending huge amounts of money it doesn’t have for a long time. So what great ideas do our leaders have: put more burden on the children and grandchildren to pay for our spending today. What a sad state of affairs. And almost no-one seems to question this behavior.
Is the idea that we would go into a recession so remote these leaders never imagined it could happen? No, of course they new it would happen. So what should a country, company, individual do if they know they have some expected event in the future they might want to spend money on? This isn’t really tricky. I would guess many 8 years olds understand the concept. You put the money in the piggy bank for when you will want to spend it.
If you decide to spend not only all the money you have but borrow huge amounts that will tax your future earnings to pay back your current spending that is your choice (as long as you can find someone to lend you money). But as many parents have told their kids you have to live with the decisions you make. You don’t get to spend your money today. Spend tomorrows money today. Spend your kids money today. And then when, tomorrow comes, just spend all that money all over again. How can a country allow leaders to so transparently tax the future of the country?
It is a sad state of affairs. The country chooses not to sent aside funds for obvious future needs. Then instead of accepting the hole they have dug for themselves decides to tax their children even more to continue the spendthrift ways. I think we not only need to have politicians actually read the bills before they vote (they refuse to pass such a law) they need to read about the ant and the grasshopper.
I have no problem with the country choosing to set aside funds to use when they want to try and stave off a recessions (to pay for tax cuts or more spending). I do have a problem with: running enormous deficits every year, raising taxes on our children and grandchildren year after year, and then deciding to raise taxes even more on the future when the obvious happens and perfectly predictable desired expenditures present themselves. The get another credit card school of financial management (that everyone in Washington DC seems to practice) is not workable for a country over the long term. As anyone that has used that strategy personally will tell you - it works for awhile but eventually there are serious consequences.
Read more
…
When you consider that farm income is at record levels (thanks to the ethanol boom, itself fueled by another set of federal subsidies); that the World Trade Organization has ruled that several of these subsidies are illegal; that the federal government is broke and the president is threatening a veto, bringing forth a $288 billion farm bill that guarantees billions in payments to commodity farmers seems impressively defiant.
…
And the government would not need to pay feedlots to clean up the water or upgrade their manure pits if subsidized grain didn’t make rearing animals on feedlots more economical than keeping them on farms. Why does the farm bill pay feedlots to install waste treatment systems rather than simply pay ranchers to keep their animals on grass, where the soil would be only too happy to treat their waste at no cost?
Related: Farming Without Subsidies in New Zealand - Washington Pays Grandchildren’s Taxes to Special Interests Today - USA Federal Debt Now $516,348 Per Household