Archive for October, 2007

Now That’s Inflation — Zimbabwe

Kurt Brouwer October 17th, 2007

The Real Time Economics Blog had a sobering post on what real inflation looks like:

Inflation Higher? Count Your Blessings Mr. Bernanke (Real Time Economics Blog, October 17, 2007, Greg Ip)

Consumer prices rose 0.27% in September from August, an annual rate of 3.2% - after an annualized drop of 1.7% in August, the Labor Department reported. Stripping out energy and food, core inflation rose to an annualized 2.7% from 1.8%. “Consumer inflation is not yet rolling over and playing dead,” warned Wells Fargo in a research note.

Still, a glance at figures released the same day for Zimbabwe offer some perspective. Inflation there hit an annualized 7,982.1% in September, up from 6,592.8% in August, Reuters reports, quoting the government’s Central Statistical Office. Despite the admirable precision of that inflation rate, “Experts estimate it is actually much higher,” the news agency says…’

Zimbabwe is an example of self-inflicted error in national development. The country has been run by a dictator, Robert Mugabe, for decades and his policies have impoverished a country that once was able to feed itself. Now, Zimbabwe’s citizens are struggling just to keep body and soul together.

Fidelity Targets Retirement Income Needs

Kurt Brouwer October 13th, 2007

This particular topic is a pretty hot one in the relatively staid world of mutual funds right now. Essentially, mutual fund companies want to compete more effectively with life insurance companies in meeting the retirement income needs of millions of upcoming Baby Boom retirees. Unfortunately, the topic is littered with appeals to emotion and confusion over how income is defined, but that’s nothing new, whether we’re talking about insurance companies or Wall Street.

Susan Kelly at Financial Week reports, Fidelity Seeks To Provide Cash for Retirees With Income Needs [emphasis added]:

‘…Brokerage giant Fidelity Investments today rolled out two new products—a set of mutual funds and a variable annuity—designed to help baby boomers turn their nest eggs into a steady stream of retirement income.

“What we hope these two products do is add another option in the solution set [baby boomers] have for their retirement income,” said Boyce I. Greer, president of the fixed income and asset allocation division of Fidelity Management & Research.

As the 78 million baby boomers begin to retire, the financial services industry is increasingly focused on the issue of generating income for them in retirement. That is perceived to be a bigger problem than it was for earlier generations of retirees because boomers are less likely to have traditional company pension plans, and their Social Security payments will replace less of their pre-retirement income. Last week Vanguard announced three Managed Payout Funds, funds of funds that help retirees generate income from their investments by providing monthly payments.

Continue Reading »

$200 Billion Fund — Growth Fund of America

Kurt Brouwer October 13th, 2007

Now, that’s a milestone. In fact, it’s two milestone. Diya Gullapalli of the Wall Street Journal reports [emphasis added]:

Welcome to the era of the $200 billion mutual fund.

In the past few days, American Funds’ Growth Fund of America, or GFA, became the first mutual fund to pass that milestone. Its rapid growth — just three years ago, the fund was less than half the size — raises a host of questions for investors.

The fund’s managers are feeling pressure to close it to new money. At the same time, performance has recently been average after years of outperformance. This month Morningstar downgraded the fund to four stars from five, a quantitative ranking based on risk-adjusted returns.

Passing the $200 billion mark is a big deal in the fund industry, which obsessively watches asset size. Big mutual funds are often cash cows for investment firms, because the costs to run them tend not to increase so significantly after they reach a certain size.

This isn’t the first time a goliath fund wrestled with growing pains. In 2000, Fidelity Investments’ Magellan Fund hit a peak of $110 billion, only to stumble after its star stock-picking manager made some bad choices, and is now around $45 billion.

Continue Reading »

U.S Treasury Letting Dollar Fall

Kurt Brouwer October 10th, 2007

As we wrote in How Far Has the Dollar Fallen? And Why?, the dollar declines when U.S. interest rates decline. And, so far, the U.S. Treasury is perfectly happy with the results. Exports are up and the trade deficit is benefiting as shown in this article by Edmund L. Andrews from the International Herad Tribune [emphasis added]:

‘The dollar is near record lows against the euro and has weakened considerably against several other major currencies, but officials in Washington are reacting with almost contented silence.

Less than two weeks before finance ministers from the Group of 7 leading industrial nations are to meet to discuss economic policy, European officials are grumbling about the weakened dollar because it makes American exports cheaper in world markets…’

The Europeans can grumble all they want, but they know exactly what they need to do in order to reduce the upward trajectory of the Euro versus the dollar. As we wrote in Asia Adjusts, But Europe Just Complains, there are simple steps the European Central Bank could take if it wanted to do anything. The IHT article continues:

‘…Analysts see little mystery in the American position: at the moment, a weaker dollar offers more benefits than a stronger one. The cheaper dollar offers a lift to American exporters by making their products competitive in many parts of the world. And while a weak dollar usually makes imports expensive, import prices have so far climbed less than other currencies’ values because foreign producers have kept prices low to preserve market share in the United States.

“Implicitly, Paulson and the Federal Reserve are happy with a gradual fall in the value of the dollar,” said Nouriel Roubini, an economist at New York University. “They’ll never say they favor a weak dollar, but the benefits to the U.S. in terms of competitiveness are significant.”

Though Paulson has primary responsibility for American exchange rate policy, Federal Reserve officials have also made it clear that they are not worried about imminent inflationary dangers from a weaker dollar.

The Fed chairman, Ben Bernanke, recently told a congressional hearing that the dollar’s value remains strong in other ways. “The value of the currency can also be expressed in terms of what it can buy in domestic goods — the domestic inflation rate,” Bernanke said in response to questions about the dollar from Representative Ron Paul, Republican of Texas and a long-shot candidate for the Republican presidential nomination. Noting that inflation remains low, Bernanke suggested that the dollar’s weakness was not a source of concern to the Fed.

Democratic lawmakers, who have been quick to attack the Bush administration about most other economic policies, have said almost nothing about the currency’s decline.

To at least some European officials, worried that the soaring value of the euro will hurt European exports, the American silence has been thunderous…’

Silence is golden in this case. The Fed and the U.S. Treasury are working together to manage the economy and keep economic growth on track. They are also doing their best to deal with long-term problems such as the trade deficit. In my opinion, we are lucky to have such solid economic leadership.

Hat tip: BrothersJuddBlog

1% of Taxpayers Pay Nearly 40% of All Income Taxes

Kurt Brouwer October 8th, 2007

Income tax rates are always a source of lots of disputes between the political parties, but also among economists, business people and almost everyone else. Unfortunately, a great deal of the dialogue is based on incomplete or even inaccurate information. This report sheds some light on the topic with a pretty interesting factual presentation of income groups and tax contribution. The report, written by Gerald Prante, was just released by the Tax Foundation, a nonprofit organization that has been tracking tax information since 1937 [emphasis added]:

‘The latest release of Internal Revenue Service data on individual income taxes comes from calendar year 2005, a year in which the economy remained healthy and continued to grow, as well as a year with higher-than-average price inflation. This year’s numbers show that both the income share earned by the top 1 percent and the tax share paid by the top 1 percent have reached all-time highs. In 2005, the top 1 percent of tax returns paid 39.4 percent of all federal individual income taxes and earned 21.2 percent of adjusted gross income, both of which are significantly higher than 2004 when the top 1 percent earned 19 percent of AGI and paid 36.9 percent of federal individual income taxes…

…Just as the highest earners lost the biggest percentage of their incomes during the recession of 2001, so they have prospered the most as the economy has continued to rebound. For example, from 2000 to 2002, the adjusted gross income (AGI) of the top 1 percent of tax returns fell by over 26 percent. In that same period, the AGI of the bottom 50 percent of tax returns actually increased by 4.3 percent. However, since 2002, as the recession has ended, AGI has risen by 61 percent for the top 1 percent and 10.7 percent for the bottom 50 percent.

From the report we learn that the highest earners have incomes that are substantially more volatile than lower income earners. In fact, during the stock market downturn of 2000-2002, the top earners saw a drop of 26%, while those in the bottom 50% actually saw their incomes go up by over 4%. And, despite all the rhetoric about income inequality growing steadily, it appears from the data that over the period from 2000-2005, the gains were very close.

Continue Reading »

« Prev - Next »