I O U America Part 2

by Ouida on April 23, 2010

Okay.  So I am going to get a little technical here, but I’ll still keep it simple.  The definition of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is:(Wikipedia)

“The gross domestic product (GDP) or gross domestic income (GDI) is a measure of a country’s overall economic output. It is the market value of all final goods and services made within the borders of a country in a year.”

Now remember the our college/grad student in the last post?  His student loans were not factored into his debt obligation because they were deferred.  Much the same way our government’s future obligations for entitlement programs are not factored into our current budget expenses because those expenses are in essence deferred.  But remember there are certain rules about debt.  Personal debt should not be more than 36% of gross income.

What is the government’s gross income?  Its GDP. Below is a graph of our GDP:

You can see that our GDP has risen pretty steadily, but unfortunately so has our debt.  Ever experience the phenomenon of getting a raise or a bonus at work only to spend every last dime of it and wonder where it went?

I’ll bet the answer is yes.  And alas Uncle Sam is no different.  Here is our public debt as a percentage of GDP.

Is our debt picture too high?  Well, we can see from the diagram that our debt as a percentage of GDP was highest after World War II.  How high is it today as a percentage of GDP?  Alas, I’ll let the Citizen’s Guide to the Unified Budget tell you:

“Historically, the Government has incurred debt when it borrows from the public to finance
budget deficits. The economic recovery efforts of the past year precipitated a need to
dramatically increase the amount of funds borrowed from the public. However, part of this
increase has financed investments that the Government expects to ultimately recover in whole or
in part. The Government’s debt held by the public totaled approximately $7.6 trillion at the end
of FY 2009, and was held by the public in the form of Treasury securities, such as bills, notes,
and bonds, and accrued interest payable. The “public” consists of individuals, corporations, state
and local governments, Federal Reserve Banks, and foreign governments. In addition to debt held by the public, the Government has outstanding nearly $4.4 trillion of intragovernmental debt, which arises when one part of the Government borrows from another. It represents debt held by Government funds, including the Social Security ($2.5 trillion) and Medicare ($372 billion) trust funds. (emphasis added)”

That would be $7.6 Trillion dollars plus $4.4 trillion dollars or $12 Trillion dollars against a GDP of $14.6 trillion dollars or 82%. OUCH! Actually this number is a bit worse because that GDP figure was from 2008.  Our GDP has declined due to the recession.  What happens to the people that we know who are in debt up to their eyeballs unless they make some dramatic changes?  A word of caution.  I am looking at total debt as a percent of GDP, most figures that you see will look at public debt only as a percent of GDP.  Public debt is debt held by the public: private citizens, other governments, corporations etc.  Public debt as a percentage of GDP is 50%.  I look at total debt because 1.  I don’t play games with balance sheets and 2. I consider intra-governmental debt because it is created by borrowing from Medicare and Social Security as important as any debt we owe to anyone else.

Now how did this budgetary mess happen?  Had we not had the recent housing bubble and Great Recession, we would still be in this mess, it is just that the recession has increased revenue shortfalls (think declining tax revenue) and made the conversation more urgent.

Again from the Citizen’s Guide to the Unified Budget:

“Strong economic growth and fundamental fiscal decisions taken in the early 1990s, including measures to reduce the Federal deficit and implementation of strong “Pay as You Go” (“Paygo”) rules, generated a significant reduction in the debt-to-GDP ratio over the course of the 1990s. From a peak of 49 percent of GDP in 1993, the debt-to-GDP ratio fell to 32 percent in 2001. During the last decade, much of this progress was undone as Paygo rules were allowed to lapse, significant permanent tax cuts were implemented, and entitlements were expanded. By September 2008, the debt-to-GDP ratio was 40% of GDP. The extraordinary demands of the  current economic and fiscal crisis have pushed up debt held by the public significantly.”

That last paragraph should put an end to partisan sniping, but it won’t.  Who was in the White House during 8 of the last 9 years?  George W. Bush.  The next to the last sentence describes pretty accurately what was done economically during his Presidency.  FDR, a Democrat, was in the White House when the deficit exceeded the entire GDP.  He had new technologies, a burgeoning work force and a new and rising tax base on his side.  The deficits grew during the Reagan and Bush I administrations, came down during the Clinton Era and went up again under Bush II.  The deficits would have gone down during the Reagan and Bush I eras had they actually cut spending while they were cutting taxes (in the end Bush I had to raise taxes), but, alas, they did not.  In short each party is responsible for our current debt burden.  They need to stop finger pointing.

Where are we headed?  It ain’t good.

This chart is scary because it doesn’t really take into account the debt I’ve been talking about.  This graph looks at income or cashflow.  Let me explain.  Remember, I said that our total income is about $2 trillion per year.  The chart looks at the amount by which expenses will outstrip our income going forward.  Again from the Citizen’s Guide:

“Chart J also illustrates the difference between estimated program spending (spending on mandatory and discretionary programs, excluding interest on debt held by the public) and estimated Government receipts.”(emphasis added)

I am going to stop here. Please comment. In my next post, I’ll look at why using the GDP figure makes me nervous.

  • Share/Bookmark

{ 0 comments }

I O U, America

by Ouida on April 21, 2010

LetsGetFiscal started following me on Twitter and the follow reminded me that I need to get back on track talking about the budget.  Our country is on a dangerous course on many levels: 1).  We have adopted the policy of taxing high income households to pay for the benefits that every citizen will enjoy 2).  We are really not talking honestly about the future of our major entitlement programs, Social Secrurity, Medicare 3). We are increasing our levels of indebtedness to pay for budgetary shortfalls. 4) Debate about the budget has gone down the Partisan sewer when both parties are equally responsible for creating the mess we are now in and, truth is, they know it.

I actually have the 2009 unified income statement for the United States on my hot little hard drive.  The document is over 200 pages long, but most of that is the citizen’s guide and it is pretty easy to read.

My financial adviser, Kim Butler, at Partners4Prosperity always reminds me that I should think micro-economically to understand macro-economics.  In other words look at how I handle money on a small scale to understand how the government does it on a large scale.

Eventually these posts are going to contain images taken directly from the unified income statement for the United States, but for right now, I am only going to discuss general principles.  First a basic example we can all relate to.

Imagine a college kid.  He finishes college and graduate school with $60,000 in debt.  His loan is at 8% and it will be financed over 10 years.  When the loan goes into re-payment the payment amount will be $727.97.

While he was in graduate school, he got a job paying $30,000 dollars per year and decided he needed a car.

Even though he will have an outstanding debt of $60,000 with a payment due of $727.97, while he is in graduate school or qualified post graduate training, his student loans will be in deferment.  Because he is not actively paying on the loans, present day creditors will not consider the loans which represent future debts when deciding whether or not to loan him money for a car today. His student loans are in essence an unmet obligation.  They aren’t due now, but they will be due at some future date.  He knows he has to plan for them, but he has no sense of urgency.

He gets a car for $15,000 at 8% for a payment of $304.15.  Remember his income is $30,000 per year.  That means that his gross take home pay (before taxes) is $2500.  There is a general rule that total debt obligations should be no more than 36% of gross monthly income and housing debt should be no more than 28% of gross monthly income.  The general rule of thumb is that the lion’s share of that maximum total debt obligation will go to housing.  Whether you are renting or buying a home these total percentages are the total percentages.  You can’t just say I’ll run up the cards until my debt is 36% of my gross pay, no you always have to factor in housing because you need a place to live.

36% of $30,000 is $10,800 dollars or 900 dollars per month.  See the problem?  Because no one was looking at his student loan debt, our student was able to get a car loan for $304.15 per month.  But when his student loans come due, he will suddenly be well over the maximum debt load for his income and he still doesn’t have a place to live!

Our student will only have 5 options:1) increase his income, 2) sell his car  3) default on his loans 4) renegotiate his debt  5) reduce current spending

Okay, now imagine our student is actually the US federal government.  Take student loans out of the picture and substitute the entitlement programs of Social Security and Medicare.  From our earlier post we know that the unmet obligation is $46 trillion dollars.  Remember our government’s income is only about $2 trillion dollars. Our government has the same options as our college student:1) it can increase its income through tax increases. Only an extremely naive person would believe that all necessary revenues can be obtained by taxing the top 2% of income earners. 2) it can sell it’s assets 3) it can re-negotiate its debt.  Actually our government already does this by issuing new bonds and using the revenue generated to cover budgetary shortfalls and to pay off other bond holders. 4) default on its debt.  There are plenty of articles on the web that discuss the possibility of US debt being downgraded. 5) reduce both present and future spending.  What this would look like is tackling fewer new social programs and reducing benefits promised through established programs such as establishing a means test for Social Security.  What this would mean is that Social Security benefits would be tied to a person’s post-retirement income, no matter how much they contributed during their working years.

I’ll stop here and ask you to please comment.

  • Share/Bookmark

{ 3 comments }

Clone Success, NOT

by Ouida on April 20, 2010

This blog post was inspired by Lee of Lee’s Shizzle

You ever wonder how one guy hits it out of the park and everyone wants to know how he did it.  I mean EXACTLY how he did it?  If cloning success were that easy everyone would be successful.  Alas it isn’t that simple.  Lee was trying to encourage folks to use their own creativity on the road to success.  He remarked how crazy it is that when you are out fishing and one guy seems to be catching the fish, all the other fisherpeople crowd around the same hole as the successful guy as if catching fish is as simple as fishing in the same hole.

I fly fish and that analogy screamed volumes to me.  At the tail water fishery on the San Juan where the fish are very selective, you come to understand that it takes more than fishing in the same hole as the successful guy to net the big fish.  It takes the right fly, heck the right combination of flies, the right fishing line and the right presentation. And at the end of the day the fish just may not like how you smell.  This same principle, that success depends on a whole lot of variables applies in the world of personal finance.

There are two principles to wealth and they are that you should 1) live below your means and 2) save your money.  Once you have mastered those two principles, then you can add two more: 1) invest your money wisely and 2) create other income streams so that you can live below your means, save your money and invest your money wisely.

Now the 20 year old new to the personal finance game would have very different results than the 50 year old who is new to the personal finance game.  Why?  Because in addition to those principles is another factor that lurks in the background;  it is one you cannot duplicate and it is one that cannot be cheated.  This factor is time.  In general the 20 year old has more of it than the 50 year old and these two bedrock financial principles take time to come to fruition.  Two different people at two different ages, using the same financial principles cannot clone success.  The 50 year old would have to save more per month than the 20 year old to produce the same results.  The 50 year old might decide that he is so behind the 8 ball that he has to take risks to boost his yields and make sure he stays on track.

One sales professional may come to a new job with more training and more real world experience than his colleague.  His results, therefore, will be different than his colleague’s even if the company they both work for also offers sales training.

There is no way around it. The awful truth is that it is impossible to duplicate success across the spectrum of variabilities.  We just want to pretend that it isn’t.  Then we don’t have to factor in the role that our life experience, temperament and creativity may play in our overall outcomes.

Please comment.

  • Share/Bookmark

{ 2 comments }

Goldman Sachs and the Three Bears

by Ouida on April 19, 2010

Let’s face it the famed childhood story is really about a home invasion.  It is a tale of theft and property destruction. Read the original fairy tale and you find something quite scary underneath.  The step sisters in the original Grimm’s tale of Cinderella actually cut off their toes to fit into the slipper.  Dig a little deeper and we find the truth about Goldilocks.  From Wikipedia:

“Each bear has his own porridge pot, chair, and bed. One day they take a walk in the woods while their porridge cools. An old hairy woman (who is described at various points in the story as impudent, bad, foul-mouthed, ugly, dirty and a vagrant deserving of a stint in the House of Correction) discovers the bears’ dwelling. After assuring herself no one is about, she enters the house. The old woman eats the Wee Bear’s porridge, then settles into his chair and breaks it. Prowling about, she finds the bear’s beds and falls asleep in Wee Bear’s bed. The climax of the tale is reached when the bears return. Wee Bear finds the old woman in his bed and cries, “Somebody has been lying in my bed,—and here she is!” The old woman starts up, jumps from the window, and is never seen again.”

And so we have it, a vagrant is made into a cute little girl too cute to allow us to see what has really happened in the story and Goldman Sachs became too gilded a financial player to allow many to appreciate the rot underneath.  A Goldman client structures a deal with investments he knows to be bad and then takes out insurance in the event those investments go bad.  He gets Goldman to find a 3rd party to certify the investments are good and Goldman sells the deal to investors who “go long”.  Goldman pockets a fee of $15 million, the client pockets tens of millions and the investors find their porridge eaten and their chairs broken to the tune of $1 billion dollars. The question remains whether or not Goldman will jump out the window or simply find a single employee who will.

Will Warren Buffett insist on a Goldman apology or will he simply vow that Berkshire Hathaway will never be a bear?  Financial writers are opining that Buffett has been used.  Is the $ 5 billion dollar investment and are the investment returns he has received are too high a price to pay for his reputation?  Goldman was aware that it would go trolling in someone else’s house for gain and wanted to keep Buffett around as a positive association.  Goldman could have bought out Buffett’s position at any time but it hasn’t.  I mean wouldn’t you want to pay off someone you owed $5 billion dollars to?  Instead Goldman is paying Berkshire Hathaway $100 to 200 million dollars a year in interest.    The problem, of course, now is that no one who invests with Goldman can ever be sure that Goldman will regard them as anything other than a dumb old bear.  On the bright side, we may finally see financial reform.  On the down side, how many pension funds are bears to the investment banks, ‘cause I don’t for a second think that Goldman Sachs is the only investment bank doing this.

Please comment

  • Share/Bookmark

{ 2 comments }