Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis |
- LA Pledges $100 Million to Fight Homelessness: Why Stop There? Why Not $1 billion? Why Not $20 Billion?
- Chicago Tax Collector Hath Arrived With Massive Tax Hike: Emanuel Says "No Stone Unturned ... Not Done Yet"
- Bubble Debate; Equity Allocations vs. Shiller PE; Simple World
Posted: 23 Sep 2015 02:33 PM PDT Public Emergency In yet another example that proves economic stupidity has no bounds, Los Angeles Puts $100 Million Into Helping Homeless. Flooded with homeless encampments from its freeway underpasses to the chic sidewalks of Venice Beach, municipal officials here declared a public emergency on Tuesday, making Los Angeles the first city in the nation to take such a drastic step in response to its mounting problem with street dwellers.Ding Ding Ding Ding, ding, ding, we have a math winner! I am not quite certain if Blasi is arguing for more or less spending, but he is the first person other than me, that I am aware of, to bring math into the equation. LA vs. EU Question of the day: Other than a sense of scale, is the homelessness crisis in Los Angeles that much different than the refugee crisis in Europe? Unlimited Demand for Free Services In LA, as in the EU, there is a virtually unlimited demand for free food, free shelter, and free services. Offer $100 million and the need will grow overnight to $1 billion. Offer $1 billion and the need will grow overnight to $20 billion. Offering free food, free services, and free shelter cannot possibly cure a problem caused by free services, especially in a desirable temperate climate. Blasi says: "Do the math here — it [$100 Million] doesn't amount to much at all." On Tuesday, in regards to Europe (but it may just as well have been LA), I wrote EU Ministers Ram Through Quota Plan; Mish Does "The Math" . By all means, let's have a math discussion. Mike "Mish" Shedlock |
Posted: 23 Sep 2015 11:05 AM PDT On May 4th I wrote Beware, the Tax Man Has Eyes on You: Potential Hike for Illinoisans is Staggering. Six months ago, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel warned that without state legislation to modify the structure of police and fire pensions and implement a "smart funding formula," Chicago property tax bills would "explode" in 2016. Today I report, the tax man hath arrived. Mayor Rahm Emanuel says Now is the Time to Hike Taxes. The "explosion" that Emanuel warned about in mid-March hit Chicago Tuesday as the mayor unveiled his $7.8 billion budget for 2016, and it wasn't pretty — even with the risky assumption that Gov. Bruce Rauner will sign legislation giving Chicago 15 more years to ramp up to 90 percent funding of police and fire pensions.Dire Predictions The Chicago Tribune reports Emanuel Paints Dire Future Without Record Property Tax Hike. Mayor Rahm Emanuel called on the city's 50 aldermen Tuesday to summon the courage to pass the largest property tax increase in modern Chicago history, and told them they could sell it to voters by painting a dire, if not quite dystopian, alternative.Not Done Yet Chicagoans beware! Emanuel explicitly warned he's "not done raising property taxes". Emanuel also pledged "No Stone Unturned". "We are going to address our challenges, and I think when the governor looks at the whole budget he will see that we didn't leave any stone unturned. It is fair, it is equitable. It's progressive," said Emanuel. Not Fair, Not Equitable What are taxes for if not services like garbage pickup, street sweeping, etc? The answer of course is untenable police, fire, and school pensions. Yes, it's "progressive" all right, "progressive idiocy". Emanuel did not do, nor has he ever done anything to fix the structural problems. The proper way to fix the school problem is for the school district to declare bankruptcy, a tactic Emanuel does not want to take. Actually, the school district cannot take that action because Illinois does not allow municipal bankruptcies. However, if the mayor were behind the idea, it would likely pressure the Illinois legislature into action. Emanuel claims he is being courageous. Passing tax hikes immediately after an election is not courageous. Admitting the school system is broke, unions are the reason, and taxpayers should not bear the brunt of the costs would be courageous. Emanuel is both a coward and a pickpocket. With his dire warning about Chicago becoming unlivable, he is also a fear monger. There is one thing you can count on, however. Emanuel is not yet done picking the pockets of Chicagoans. When Emanuel promised, "no stone unturned" you can bet your last tax dime on that. Mike "Mish" Shedlock |
Bubble Debate; Equity Allocations vs. Shiller PE; Simple World Posted: 23 Sep 2015 01:16 AM PDT Yale University market scholar Robert Shiller entered the bubble debate last week as noted in the Financial Times article Fears Grow Over US Stock Market Bubble. The Nobel economics laureate told the Financial Times that his valuation confidence indices, based on investor surveys, showed greater fear that the market was overvalued than at any time since the peak of the dotcom bubble in 2000.Equity Allocations vs. Shiller PE Michael Green at Ice Farm Capital emailed the above chart as well as the reference to the Financial Times article. The chart shows equity allocations on the left axis vs. the Case-Shiller smoothed PE ratio on the right. It is based on Ice Farm analysis using Shiller's and Fed Flow of Funds data. Simple World I had seen the Shiller piece before, but something caught my eye when I read it a second time. "You would think that when interest rates are higher people would sell stocks, but the financial world just isn't that simple," said Shiller. I am a big fan of Shiller's model. However, the above statement makes no sense because quite frankly, what Shiller suggests is impossible! Simple Math Here's a simple economic truism: Someone must hold every equity share and every bond 100% of the time. In aggregate, it's impossible for people to sell stocks to buy bonds when interest rates are high (or vice versa). For every buyer of common stock there is a seller. Likewise, for every buyer of bonds there is a seller. Sentiment can change (and pricing with it), but because of simple math, if there was an aggressive sentiment shift towards getting out of stocks in favor of high-yielding bonds, then bond yields would plunge. At an individual level one can make changes, but at an aggregate level it is impossible. Thus, the financial math is indeed simple. It's the timing of sentiment changes that makes it difficult for the individual and impossible for the aggregate investor. Stocks vs. Bonds Individually, one can sell stocks to buy bonds or vice versa. But what about the possibility that neither is the place to be? Seven-Year Asset Class Real Return Projections As of 2015-08-31 (posted on September 15), GMO sees things like this: Purple highlights mine. I like to repeat GMO's disclaimer so I do not misrepresent the chart. *The chart represents real return forecasts for several asset classes and not for any GMO fund or strategy. These forecasts are forward‐looking statements based upon the reasonable beliefs of GMO and are not a guarantee of future performance. Forward‐looking statements speak only as of the date they are made, and GMO assumes no duty to and does not undertake to update forward‐looking statements. Forward‐looking statements are subject to numerous assumptions, risks, and uncertainties, which change over time. Actual results may differ materially from those anticipated in forwardlooking statements. U.S. inflation is assumed to mean revert to long‐term inflation of 2.2% over 15 years.Care to Trade? Care to trade US stocks for US Bonds? If so, be prepared to trade negative 1.1% real returns in equities for negative 0.9% returns in US bonds. If that were for a single year, no one would care. But that is the forecast every year for the next seven years on average. In practice, it will not happen that way. For example, there easily could be a 40% plunge over the next year or so followed by a slow trudge sideways for three years then a rally back to where we are today over the next two years. The possibilities are endless, that's just one example. Note that GMO "real" returns assume mean reversion to 2.2% inflation over the next 15years. Nominal returns could be slightly better or worse, depending on how quickly the 2.2% inflation target is hit. Pension Plan Assumptions In general, pension plans assume 7.5% or so returns every year. Many pension plans, especially those in Illinois will be close to bankrupt if GMO's forecast is in the ballpark. I personally think GMO is somewhat optimistic. I expect negative real returns for about 10 years. Mike "Mish" Shedlock |
You are subscribed to email updates from Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis. To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
Google Inc., 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States |
Niciun comentariu:
Trimiteți un comentariu