Those are words you will never hear in Washington because, from what I gather, they have no idea how a calculator actually works. I just started reviewing this new bill, you know, the one so popular that the phone lines to Congress were jammed all week long, and it does not add up. I shouldn’t say that it does not add up, I should say that the assumptions are ridiculous.
They decided the best way to go was to raise the Medicare tax “only” on individuals making over $200,000 a year and couples making over $250,000 a year. The income tax increase is .9% for the Medicare tax, this will be in addition to the other coming tax hikes coming at the end of this year, and there is now an unearned income Medicare tax. So, if you make a lot of money and have dividends or interest you will have to pay an additional 3.8% tax on those investments, so much for investors buying dividends stocks.
Here is the problem, the Democrats claim this tax hike will raise $210B paying for roughly 20% of this bill. Are these people for real? Why would investors hold income producing investments if they will lose 3.8% on the interest earned? They will not because they will buy a variable annuity or growth stocks that pay nothing in dividends. That blows that $210B figure right out of the water, but the Medicare income tax hike is hard to get around. Unless you can control how much you are getting paid you will have to pay that tax, but it will surely have repercussions.
For the first time ever we have an administration who is going to impose one of the largest tax increases on Americans during a recession. I take that back, this did happen twice before, the 1930’s and the 1970’s and both decades were terrible. I can hear many of you now, it is only on the rich! Well, I got news for you first, there has never been one estimate from Congress on taxation, revenue generated and cost that has ever been right. Second, there is no way that only people making over $299K a year can pay for this program, it is impossible. That $200K number will trickle down to, my guess at least, to the sweet spot of $150K for individuals and $175K for couples which is a lot of people I might add.
Insanity does not begin to describe what is happening right now. I mean, sure the President signed an $18b jobs bill today and is about to urge the passing of a trillion dollar spending bill, do you see something wrong with that? It is a bit disproportionate and, frankly, right now the country needs jobs. At this point I just hope we have a real up or down vote on this bill so we know where our Congressional member stands and we do not go through with this sneaky backdoor deemed to pass vote.
I cannot wait to read the full bill, but, unfortunately, I will not have time until well after it is passed. I do know that ultimately this is bad news for all of the country because it was not put together properly. All the people wanted was for Congress to start over and do this the right way, no one is in the “do nothing camp.” Unfortunately, that is not to be and we are on the verge of expanding upon already existing failed programs. Essentially, it is like taking Medicare, which is almost broke, and giving it to everyone, good idea! Actually, that is Alan Greyson’s idea right now, Medicare for all is what he says, but, as most lawyers are, he is illiterate to just how ugly the balance sheet of the government or Medicare really is. Good luck!
What no one wants to talk about, ever, in terms of retirement planning is the sequence of returns and the impact on retirement planning. I am bringing this up now as we wrap up the worst 10 year period ever in the S&P 500 we have ever had. In fact, technically, this is the only official 10 year period of time the S&P 500 has ever been negative. I say officially because the 10 year period is subject to interpretation, but regardless we are looking at a period of time wrapped by 2 of the worst periods ever to invest in the equity markets. In other words this decade had the mother of dumbbell negative returns ever.
What the impact of this 10 year period has had on retirees will be felt for the next couple of decades. Essentially, many retirees or pre-retirees have been wiped out or will have to drastically alter their lifestyles in order to make their money last. While I could easily blast the likes of Scott Burns, Suze Orman and a million other drive by financial advisor writers for dispensing horrible advice that they likely did not even follow themselves, I will not. They simply told people what they believed to be true because they used flawed logic and ridiculous assumptions that normal financial advisors would have dismissed as idiocy, not that they are innocent either, but they were the targets of these writers inept ridicule for long enough.
The simple fact is this, everything has a cycle whether we are talking about the Earth, the moon or the markets they all of a cycle. When we look at market returns sometimes the cycle shows an unmanaged index does substantially better than managed money while at other times managed money does better than the unmanaged index. Over the past 15 years we saw the unmanaged index do better than managed money, but will that trend continue? Unlikely. That cycle has run its course from my point of view, sure there will be stand out sectors, but that is it. If you go back in time to the 1970’s it is fair to say that this theory of mine pans out and managed accounts did better than the unmanaged indexes, but you know me, let’s not let the facts get in the way of what they pawn off as the truth.
The beginning of this decade should have been the warning sign for those following the advice of the financial rags who themselves have never ran money or witnessed what it is really like to lose someone money. Instead they blast brokers for making money and tell you to buy an index fund because over the long-term “nothing outperforms the S&P 500,” how’s that working out for you? Simply put, they did not know their history and they over simplified a very complex thing, your retirement planning. Retirement planning is complicated and deeply personal and no one, I really mean this by the way, should ever take their retirement planning advice from the TV or newspaper.
With hindsight on my side, unfortunately, it is now clear that these people did not know what they were talking about. Not only that, but their intentions are now out for everyone to see. One person mentioned already, who always advocated Vanguard index funds, opened an RIA firm and will gladly manage your money for a small fee, even though he said brokers were crooks before, unless he is the broker I guess. The other person sells binders for $50 or $100 that you can buy at Staples for $10 or $20, but since they are branded with their logo or some other nonsense they are worth more, I am still trying to figure out why that is. Either way, to their legions of devoted followers their betrayal means nothing or they will continue to mindlessly follow them, which is astounding to me, even though they destroyed their wealth. Here is what I mean.
The sequence of returns is the timing of returns, either good or bad, and the impact on your portfolio. This is the most important aspect of investing and the biggest ‘Black Swan’ there is because it is out of your control. This is why asset allocation is so important when you are talking about your serious retirement money. I have a larger portion of play money that I speculate with, but you better believe that my real money, my retirement money, is not in some E-Trade account with my finger on the buy/sell button all day long. I have a plan with my real money and I do tinker with it occasionally, but only when I feel the need to be more conservative or more aggressive, but it is professionally managed, not by me, to keep my emotions out of the game. However, the sequence of returns is always ignored by most gurus I read or listen to and it will devastate you if you are not careful.
If you invest and instantly lose 10% for the first couple of years it takes you a very long time to regain those losses or exceptionally high returns for a few years. It is even worse if you are taking income from your portfolio which is the case for many retirees, unfortunately. I am going to concentrate on those taking income from their portfolios in this example, just 5% income I might add, because many Boomers retired either in 2000 or in the last few years, either way you will get the point. I am not even going to show you the double whammy of the dumbbell negative returns because that is so depressing it is not even funny. In fact, this will be and is such a serious problem I am not sure what can be done about it because literally millions of Boomers are in serious trouble now.
Here we see someone who decides to retire and rolls over his 401K and listens to a buy and hold indexing guru. They decide to invest into a generic fund and let it all ride thinking that 5% withdrawals should suit them just fine, since he is told the market averages 10% over the long-term, another farce I might add. Unfortunately for this investor he got suckered into a bad time to invest and the market fell 10% for the first 2 years he owned his fund, but no problem writes the financial guru, just hold on and everything will be fine, really? Well, you tell me if everything looks fine to you.
Exhibit 1-1
Keep in mind, I am not showing any other negative returns, not even a negative 1%, and I am showing +8% returns for every other year in this illustration. I am also showing a straight 5% withdrawal rate, not ever a little more for the grand kids, to pay the taxes or medical bills, just 5%. This person runs out of money in about 20 years with 2 negative years right off the bat and they did not even look that bad, 10% market declines are, well, normal right? That is just one illustration of the sequence of returns and how they can impact the investor, not imagine if I put in the 2008 50% decline in there, there would not be anything left. I also ran this with 6% withdrawals, but the only difference is it gets uglier faster.
There is nothing you or I can do about the sequence of returns, but I have never seen something so important ignored before. While we are wrapping up the worst decade on record for stocks don’t you think we should talk about this stuff a little bit, especially since Boomers are about to retire in droves, well they were at least. Frankly, those bond funds everyone is slamming right now, do you know why they are so popular, not that I agree with it I might add, but they are so popular because they have positive returns on the 5 and 10 year benchmarks. Look at equity portfolios, most funds look horrible, except some managed funds I might add, but in comparison investors are saying, well sure this fund only did 5%, but it is better than the -3% I did over 10 years, so buy it.
I may sound bitter, but this is serious stuff that people just take so lightly and it drives me nuts. CNBC is now all about entertainment, not about serious news anymore which is a shame. The personal financial gurus are all about selling their latest book rather than helping people do real things, but maybe it is the peoples fault when you have to have a segment called can I afford this. People, if you have no money in the bank, in debt up to your eyes, make $50K a year, then no you cannot afford a $700K house, it is common sense. However, even though they are getting calls like this it does not justify giving out poor advice, ignoring history, not understanding the sequence of returns, the basics of asset allocation, vilifying brokers, picking on products – yes folks a variable annuity turned out to be the best product in the world to buy in 2000, and simply recommending index funds because they are index funds – a monkey could do that.
There is good news and bad news to this mess. The good news is it is almost over and the bad news is that is it is almost over. No matter what side of the fence you are on the one thing I can assure you of is that it is going to pass tomorrow morning. Even though I can also assure you that it is a budget buster, see the Republican CBO inquiry today for proof, and you should all know by now that the CBO is garbage in, garbage out group. What I mean is that if you feed it the sequence of data you want results for you are certain to get the desired results you want.
The real unbiased results were from the actuary that submitted his results a couple weeks ago, sorry, but actuaries know insurance and are key to determining costs, risks and results. His report shows that the costs for premiums will go sky high, I guarantee that to be the case as well, I know a thing or two about insurance as well. Basically, we have lawyers writing a bill that is math intensive and that is a major mistake, for proof look at Medicare deficits, Social Security, National Flood Insurance or any other government run program. For those who think this bill will reduce health insurance premiums ask yourself this one question, how can it is they did not take out the federal anti-trust exemption for insurance companies?
Seriously, without taking out that one exemption it is next to impossible to lower insurance premiums because it restricts citizens from buying policies across state lines. That means that insurers who have a lock on some states will still have a lock on those states, give me a break. Not only that, but now these same insurers must add millions of sick people to the roles and cannot charge them higher premiums, specifically, so that means all of our premiums will go up. This bill is the greatest gift to the insurance industry ever created. The only government gift to the private industry that was better, and it was not even close, was the no bid contracts to Halliburton under Bush. If this thing passes, buy insurance companies because for the first time in history the Federal government will mandate that citizens will be forced to buy a product from private companies to the tune of a trillion dollars over the next 10 years, give or take a few billion.
Because premiums will go sky high and our brilliant elected officials are incapable of doing simple math the subsidized premiums we will have to pay will blow those sweet deficit reducing estimates right out of the water within 3 to 4 years. If the administration and Congress decided to work with the industry, people like me who are truly impartial, they could have built a real reform bill, but since they think they know everything they have just put the final nail in the coffin of the US, from a fiscal point of view. Medicare will be insolvent or eliminated much faster than currently projected and the budget deficits will be through the roof by 2016 as the new taxes make people rethink how much money they want to earn. Oh, I am also assuming that we are actually in a recovery I might add, but if we are not in a real recovery, which the housing numbers today shows that without government help we are still in trouble, then the trouble comes much earlier.
What is that you say, AARP and the AMA support this bill so it must be OK? Let me tell you something about those organizations, in my opinion, they would sell their grand kids for an extra dollar and I am not kidding. AARP had a Medicare Advantage plan that they endorsed pulled from the market because it was so bad. They endorsed the product, it got pulled from the market and I can assure you that Medicare Advantage contract was a lot shorter than 2,100 pages long so it is highly unlikely they even know what is in the health care reform bill, but they know they can profit from it somehow. They hate variable annuity contracts, but love immediate annuity contracts because they have a GA contract with NY Life. Basically, if they can profit from it they will endorse it, period.
The AMA, who knows what they see in it except that they probably think they will get a permanent Doc Fix Bill passed or they like the idea of mandatory private insurance much better than a public option. Let’s face it, $26 per office visit from Medicare must stink versus the $50 or $90 per visit from private insurance. If you combine that an additional 30M new patients, or 40M depending who you listen to or where you get your uninsured number from, that equals some major money for the AMA and its members.
Clearly, this whole bill revolves around money for everyone. Everyone who loves it is getting paid big time to endorse it or vote for it. However, you, the person who pays for everything, is not in favor of this bill according to every poll conducted. I wonder why you are not in favor of it? Maybe because you know your Congress person is receiving tons of money from special interest groups to push things through, check opensecrets.org to see, or that Bernie Sanders, a socialist, sold out for $10B, way to be a socialist, Ben Nelson sold out for less, and of course we have the Louisiana Purchase take II. However, you have to pay your taxes plus the health insurance premiums and Congress wonders why you don’t want this thing, incredible.
What I find interesting is that New York, who is on the verge of bankruptcy, should have held out against this thing. Where was Schumer and Gillibrand on this? Why didn’t they say no way on this bill and get out Medicaid paid for? It work for Ben Nelson and Bernie I am sure it would have worked for NY. Oh yeah, Chuck was busy making the media rounds and calling flight attendants “bitch” instead of doing is fiduciary responsibility to his home state. I dislike the Republicans, I mean abortion that is the best defense against this thing you can come up with, however I agree with them that this bill is the train wreck of the century. Why is China moving towards capitalism, but the US appears to be moving towards socialism?
Clearly socialism did not and does not work, but here we are. For those who want the socialist lifestyle I urge you to seek out the countries that live under those types of regimes. I admit the US has problems, nothing is perfect, but here is the thing most countries want what we have, not the other way around. We could fix health care the right way if we took our time and did things in the open, as Obama promised he would do, but that never happened. Instead we decided to use a sledge hammer to itch our nose and it is not going to end well. Unfortunately it will take 4 years for me to be proven correct.
This has been speculated for some time now, but a WSJ article highlights a report showing that the FHA reserves has fallen below federally mandated levels. The reason for the levels falling below the minimums is because Congress made the agency fill in for private banks in 2007-2008 when banks began to pull out of the market. Of course there was a fair amount of fraud involved, because the government can never figure out how to rid itself of fraudulent behavior, but at the end of the day the firm took on risky borrowers.
Not to mention that Congress has literally no one to blame but themselves for this fiasco as they pressured the agency themselves. I am confident that they will find a scapegoat within the agency as Congress refuses to accept any responsibility for their own behavior. According to the WSJ the FHA will suffer some significant losses from loans written from 2007/08 because they had loosened their standards. The percentage of losses is pretty significant, from my perspective, but when you know there are 350M taxpayers behind you, well what is a little risk?
Here is what the WSJ said:
“Although the FHA has tightened credit standards, many of the 2007 and early 2008 mortgages are going bad. The agency expects defaults on 24% of all loans insured in 2007, and 20% of those backed in 2008.”
The article went on to say:
“This month, the FHA is to release the findings of its annual audit, which will show that the projected value of the agency’s reserves has fallen below a federally mandated level, raising concerns that the FHA may need taxpayer money for the first time in its 75-year history. FHA officials say the agency has enough capital to withstand expected losses.”
The loans being hit the hardest are the refinancing loans, of course, which are a double whammy as the asset value is now worth much less than the loan value. The most shocking portion of the report, besides the fact that the FHA will more than likely need capital, is that loans written in 2007 for people with credit scores of less than 600 rose to 37% of the loans written. That is almost 4 out of every 10 borrowers had a credit score so low they probably could not get a secured credit card, but a mortgage, no problem. Of course the firm tightened standards after the collapse and now works with firms who implement their own minimum standards, but the damage is done.
What is not attached to the article is the exact dollar figure for these loans, but by the looks of the chart provided it is clearly substantial. It is becoming more apparent that the FHA is in or in the beginning stages of a major problem. Whether or not anyone cares about this problem is also another story, but this is a major deal as it puts the taxpayer on the hook again. Not only that, but it also proves that this mess is not over and the problems are still with us today, regardless of what we are being told by the Fed and other cheerleaders.
I was excited to see The Hartford had turned the corner to profitability, until I realized that they only had positive earnings if you excluded the losses. I am sorry, but that is accounting profits, not actual profits. Without the losses the firm posted a whopping $1.56 per share, but including the losses the firm lost $.79 per share. Of course, no one is going to look under the hood at the balance sheet in the media, so come with me for a ride at looking at an insurance company’s balance sheet.
First, let’s take a look at this statement about these quarters’ results:
“Impairments were $536 million, pre-tax, in the third quarter of 2009. The majority of impairments were related to potential future credit losses on certain structured securities.
Net unrealized losses on investments were $5.8 billion, pre-tax, as of September 30, 2009, compared with $13.2 billion as of December 31, 2008. The improvement was driven by significant spread tightening across virtually all fixed maturity asset classes in the second and third quarter of 2009, partially offset by the implementation of new impairment accounting guidance.“
So, there is still $5.8B in losses on the books, that will have to be realized because everything is catching a bid nowadays. However, what caught my eye was new impairment accounting guidance. That is the fabled market-to-fantasy land issue that we have all been talking about. What would happen if we did not have that rule in place? I am sure you know that that $5.8B would go way up, but that must be good news, somehow.
The firm did not enjoy prosperous growth across its business lines, its P&C business was down pretty much across the board. Its variable annuity business had significant net outflows, its fixed annuities had less than $1B in net inflows. The mutual fund arm of the firm did have strong inflows of about $2.7B, but it is a low profit margin product. Its group benefits did OK with $4.4B and its individual life has margins of about 4%. Overall, it is not that strong of a report in my view as its core business were way down.
If you actually look at the balance sheet there is simply nothing to really like. Every division, except for the P&C division lost money, but had a credit from previous losses which offset the loss and made it a gain. This is a paper gain, not an actual gain at all. For example, The Hartford had a loss of ($323M) in its core life business, but Less: Net realized capital losses of $822M and what do you know, you have a profit of $499M. I know, I am being picky, why argue with a profit, right? Sorry, but a profit is something you earn, not carry forward credits or offset losses. I am not saying that The Hartford’s earnings are not legitimate, but I am saying it is just accounting.
This type of accounting realized losses were on every line of the earnings statement, which makes me think that the $.79 loss is the only number to go with here. I know we are all looking for good numbers and good news, but accounting profits are just that and not real. What happens when you have no more losses to offset anything or the rules get changed, I hope, back to mark-to-market? The Hartford is a good firm and I know they will be fine, but I do not like this quarter’s earnings at all. I do not own any long or short positions in The Hartford and I encourage you to look for yourself at the earnings report and judge it for yourself.
Feedback