Monday, September 26, 2011

Goldilocks

Loosing gold to theft or negligence is very painful. But what to say of gold that is with you all the time, but looses in value. In the last few weeks, gold has started a downward descent from a high of $1,917 to a low of $1,600 per ounce. Furthermore, Gold Futures are also down so not much hope for a quick comeback.

 

image

While Gold has lost some shine recently, it has still outperformed Dow and S&P500 over a 12-month horizon.

image

Friday, September 23, 2011

Fundamentals improve but markets deteriorate

"
The Conference Board reported that its Leading Economic Indicators index rose 0.3% during August following July's revised 0.6% increase, initially set at 0.5%. The gain beat the Consensus forecast for a 0.1% rise. Despite the increase, however, the latest six-month growth rate as calculated by the Conference Board fell to 4.8%, the slowest since last August.
In conjunction with slower growth, the breadth of increase amongst the component series fell. The 1-month diffusion index dropped to 40%, its least since during the recession, and the 6-month diffusion index also eased to a low 55%. Money supply growth together with a steeper yield curve added 0.9 percentage points to the leader's August gain. Lower stock prices & consumer expectations as well as a shorter workweek offset the bulk of these positive influences.
The index of coincident indicators ticked up just 0.1%, the same as during July which was revised down from 0.3%. The 1-month diffusion index held up at 88% as did the 6-month index at 100%, but the six-month growth rate fell to 1.6%, its least since Q3 last year. Three of the component series rose last month but employment was unchanged.
In a sign that economic excesses built up, the August lagging indicator index rose 0.3% for the third straight month. Growth in bank lending to commercial and industrial customers accounted again for most of the increase. The ratio of coincident-to-lagging indicators, which tends to "lead" the "leaders," fell for the sixth month in the last seven.
Fragmentary items available thus far in September paint a picture that is not promising for another advance in the leading index. As seen yesterday, unemployment insurance claims moved up to 444,000, stock prices fell sharply, the yield curve flattened and the Univ. of Michigan Index of Consumer Expectations slipped. Offsetting these declines was the money supply which continues higher
The Conference Board figures are available in Haver's BCI database; the components are available there, and most are also in USECON. The forecast figure is the Consensus in the AS1REPNA database. Visit the Conference Board's site for coverage of leading indicator series from around the world."

Haver Analytics

Sunday, August 28, 2011

How bad was the recent recession

With a 6% decline in jobs and a 5% contraction in economy, the recession in 2007 was one of the worst in the past 60 years. See the graphical display by the Bloomberg

 

image

Monday, August 22, 2011

How declining cities can reverse their fortunes - The Globe and Mail

The Globe and Mail reports that the fastest growing metros in the US are doing so because of lower local and state taxes.
How declining cities can reverse their fortunes - The Globe and Mail

My response:

The correlation between lower taxes and high growth rates in some metropolitan areas in the US is spurious at best. While it may be true that metros with the highest population growth had a slightly lower average tax rate of 9.4% (against 10.6% for the lowest population growth metros), one cannot ignore the fact that the high growth metros are located in the US Sunbelt.

It is, therefore, not the lower tax rates, as Cato Institute would have us all believe, but the cheap air conditioning and oversupply of new housing that enabled rapid growth in metros located in the US Sunbelt.

Professor Edward Glaeser of Harvard University in 2007 observed that while the metros located in the Sunbelt have experienced above average increase in housing supply, the price of new housing increased at a slower pace in the Sunbelt than the rest of the US, which is indicative of an oversupplied housing market.

Furthermore, seven out of 10 highest population growth metros, reported in the Cato Institute’s paper, are located in States with the highest foreclosure rates, i.e., Nevada, California, Arizona, Georgia, and Florida.

"Why Are Some Cities Growing While Others Are Shrinking?," Cato Journal, 31, 2 (Spring/Summer 2011), 285-303.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, August 20, 2011

Scotia Capital's economist catches the British mistake

The news lifted hopes for a fast recovery in the UK. According to the Office for National Statistics (ONS) the construction activity in the UK had increased by 2.3% in the three months ending in June 2011. This was a manifold increase over 0.5% observed in the previous time periods. Within hours the economists all over the UK revised their estimates for GDP growth from 0.2% to 0.3%.

It was all fine until Alan Clarke, an economist with Scotia Capital noticed that if one averages the construction activity reported for April, May and June 2011, the result is a mere 0.5% increase and not 2.3% as the ONS had initially reported.

It turned out that an arithmetic mistake (i.e., simple addition, subtraction, division) caused the error.

Still not too late to send economists at ONS back for some refreshers in statistics.

ONS construction error moves markets - Telegraph
Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, August 19, 2011

Warren Buffet in New York Times

From the NY Times:

"
OUR leaders have asked for “shared sacrifice.” But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched.
While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.
These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places.
Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.
If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine — most likely by a lot.
To understand why, you need to examine the sources of government revenue. Last year about 80 percent of these revenues came from personal income taxes and payroll taxes. The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. It’s a different story for the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot.
Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.
I didn’t refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.
Since 1992, the I.R.S. has compiled data from the returns of the 400 Americans reporting the largest income. In 1992, the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2 percent on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion — a staggering $227.4 million on average — but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent.
The taxes I refer to here include only federal income tax, but you can be sure that any payroll tax for the 400 was inconsequential compared to income. In fact, 88 of the 400 in 2008 reported no wages at all, though every one of them reported capital gains. Some of my brethren may shun work but they all like to invest. (I can relate to that.)
I know well many of the mega-rich and, by and large, they are very decent people. They love America and appreciate the opportunity this country has given them. Many have joined the Giving Pledge, promising to give most of their wealth to philanthropy. Most wouldn’t mind being told to pay more in taxes as well, particularly when so many of their fellow citizens are truly suffering.
Twelve members of Congress will soon take on the crucial job of rearranging our country’s finances. They’ve been instructed to devise a plan that reduces the 10-year deficit by at least $1.5 trillion. It’s vital, however, that they achieve far more than that. Americans are rapidly losing faith in the ability of Congress to deal with our country’s fiscal problems. Only action that is immediate, real and very substantial will prevent that doubt from morphing into hopelessness. That feeling can create its own reality.
Job one for the 12 is to pare down some future promises that even a rich America can’t fulfill. Big money must be saved here. The 12 should then turn to the issue of revenues. I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged and continue the current 2-percentage-point reduction in the employee contribution to the payroll tax. This cut helps the poor and the middle class, who need every break they can get.
But for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more — there were 8,274 in 2009 — I would suggest an additional increase in rate.
My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice."

Warren E. Buffett is the chairman and chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway.


Enhanced by Zemanta