Archive for the 'Energy' Category

Clunk

Kurt Brouwer August 20th, 2009

Cash for Clunkers has set a new land speed record for a failed government program [emphasis added below]:

NY dealers pull out of clunkers program (Breitbart / AP, August 19, 2009, Dan Strumpf)

Hundreds of auto dealers in the New York area have withdrawn from the government’s Cash for Clunkers program, citing delays in getting reimbursed by the government, a dealership group said Wednesday. 

…The program offers up to $4,500 to shoppers who trade in vehicles getting 18 mpg or less for a more fuel-efficient car or truck. Dealers pay the rebates out of pocket, then must wait to be reimbursed by the government. But administrative snags and heavy paperwork have created a backlog of unpaid claims. Schienberg said the group’s dealers have been repaid for only about 2 percent of the clunkers deals they’ve made so far.

Many dealers have said they are worried they won’t get repaid at all, while others have waited so long to get reimbursed they don’t have the cash to fund any more rebates, Schienberg said…

Cash flow.  It’s an exciting new concept.  Apparently, the bureaucrats in DC are unfamiliar with it though.  On the other hand, maybe they get it.  Improving cash flow means slowing down the checks you write.  Here’s another example from New Mexico:

Dealers Stiffed As Clunkers Pile Up (KRQE News, August 20, 2009, Alex Tomin)

Some New Mexico auto dealers have backed out of the cash-for-clunkers program and more may do so as the federal government takes its time providing cash reimbursements.

Dealers across the state are owed more than $3.6 million, according to a dealers’ group which says that so far Uncle Sam has only written three checks totaling about $14,000.

Cash for clunkers–officially its the Car Allowance Rebate System–allows consumers to trade their gas guzzlers for a more fuel-efficient rides while earning up to $4,500 toward the purchase price.

Dealerships put up the cash for the rebates after being told by the Obama administration they would be paid back within 10 days of the sale.

With that much cash in limbo they’ve called in reinforcements.

“You simply can’t ask businesses to front $200,000, $300,000 for any period of time,” Rep. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., told KRQE News 13. “These applications are simply not being processed fast enough.

“So we are going to be on the phone today to the White House and to the feds in DC to try and get this moving.”

Don Chalmers’ dealership received the most reimbursement so far.

“I pay my bills,” Chalmers said. “If I was three weeks or four weeks late on paying my taxes I suspect that they would be in my office real quick…

Nice line about being late on paying taxes.

The so-called Cash for Clunkers program has been an eye opener for many people because it illustrates the many problems with government programs.  And, it has done this in a very short time span, so Americans have seen firsthand how it has gone off the road.

For more on this, see Collateral Damage From Cash for Clunkers.

Hat tip: Instapundit

Mutual Funds that Hedge

Kurt Brouwer August 18th, 2009

Morningstar’s Fund Spy column has a piece on five mutual funds that employ various hedge-fund-like strategies.  Here are short takes on two of the five.  Both of these are interesting funds [emphasis added]:

Five Mutual Funds to Help You Hedge (Morningstar, August 17, 2009, Russel Kinnel)

Harbor Commodity Real Return (HACMX)

…If inflation comes back, this fund could provide some protection. I particularly like it for portfolios that are heavily weighted to fixed income and, therefore, are vulnerable to a spike in inflation. Run by PIMCO in a fashion similar to Pimco Commodity Real Return Fund (PCRDX), this fund tracks a basket of commodities and then adds in a Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities overlay that effectively gives you exposure to TIPS as well as commodities. We recommend the Harbor fund over the PIMCO fund because of its low expense ratio. Beware of the fund’s volatility and be sure to keep it to a single-digit weighting in your portfolio. Ideally, it should be held in a tax-sheltered account…

I don’t really understand why he would only hold Harbor Commodity Real Return in a tax-sheltered account.  Certainly, there is an income component to this fund, but that just means you would want to consider the taxation issue when putting it in a portfolio.  And, since Kinnel is recommending a single-digit weighting (that is, 3% or 5% etc.), it should not have a big impact on taxes.

To learn more about the Harbor Commodity Real Return Fund, check out its web site here.

The Pimco Commodity Real Return Fund has a much longer track record and it is a larger fund in terms of assets.  Despite the expense ratio issue, I would still opt for the Pimco version.

Our firm has a position for some clients in PCRIX, which is the institutional version of Pimco Commodity Real Return Fund.

Hussman Strategic Growth (HSGFX)

This long-short fund takes the edge off market downturns. John Hussman takes long positions in individual stocks but offsets some of that market exposure by shorting indexes. While that has limited the fund’s upside, it has made it a standout in difficult times. It lost 9% in 2008 but enjoyed positive returns in every other calendar year since its inception in 2000. The fund’s expense ratio recently fell to 1.04%…

To learn more about Hussman Strategic Growth, I recommend reading some of Hussman’s commentary at his web site, which is here.

The piece goes on to discuss three more mutual funds that do some form of hedging.  It is worth reading the whole article.

Collateral Damage From Cash for Clunkers

Kurt Brouwer August 18th, 2009

The so-called Cash for Clunkers program has been an eye opener for many people because it illustrates the many problems with well-intentioned, but misguided government programs.  And, it has done this in a very short time span, so Americans have seen firsthand how it has gone off the road.  In fact, stories about collateral damage from the program are popping up.

What’s wrong with Cash for Clunkers?: The original Cash for Clunkers authorization was for $1 billion.  The program has already – in a couple of weeks – run through that $1 billion.  However, the $1 billion was somehow used up without actually paying car dealers the money they are owed under the program.  This report from CBS News gives the details:

Since Cash for Clunkers was launched last month it’s been seen as a big success.

“We’ve delivered over 100 cars under the program,” said dealer Matt Luzio.

But it’s been a complicated process. Luzio’s Flemington, N.J. dealership has only gotten a federal refund for just one of 103 he’s sold.

“It amounts to about a half a million dollars outstanding right now,” Luzio said.

While consumers get a discount when they trade in their clunkers, the cash from the rebates goes to the dealer – as much as $4,500 dollars for each car. And if the government rejects the application, it’s the dealer who is on the hook. So Luzio is holding on to the clunkers in case he needs to sell them like he would any trade-in…
Now, clunkers are piling up, costing him an extra $2,500 a month to store them on a separate lot.

“We are worried if the approval process isn’t sped up, we’ll have to secure more space to store clunkers,” Luzio said.

Nonetheless, the $1 billion is spent or allocated or whatever, so what should be done.  Simple.  Spend more.  Another $2 billion has been authorized confirming a classic governmental solution to a problem program.  If it is not working well, give it more money.

Congress and its actions are frequently based on political opportunism and crackpot economics.  As a result, regulations for programs such as Cash for Clunkers are absurdly complicated.  Also, in crafting this legislation, Congress devoted little or no effort to find out what happened to similar programs in other states or countries.   And, the very folks who created the program seem to be surprised at the strong public demand for government giveaways.  Finally, the solution is, as always, give away more money.

Unintended consequences are cropping up:

  • Used car costs have risen by 30% as this video reports
  • Reports are surfacing about problems at charities that depend on used car donations
  • MarketWatch reports that July retail sales fell despite Cash for Clunkers:

U.S. retail sales fell 0.1% in July despite a boost from the government’s cash-for-clunkers subsidy, the Commerce Department reported Thursday. It was the first decline in seasonally adjusted sales in three months. The report shows that consumer spending is still weak despite attempts by the government to stimulate demand. Sales at most kinds of stores declined in July. Economists surveyed by MarketWatch were looking for sales to rise 0.8%. Falling gasoline prices in July led to a 2.1% decline in sales at gasoline stations. Excluding gas, retail sales rose 0.1. Excluding autos, retail sales fell 0.6%, against an expectation of a 0.1% increase.

Is Cash for Clunkers a success?

I suspect Congress would say yes, however I would say no.

Let’s review the scoring here.  First, Joe Consumer turns in a decent car, which gets destroyed.  He then buys a new car for, let’s say $25,000.  Government borrows $4,500 and pays auto company the dough, which offsets that portion of the cost of Joe’s car.  However, Joe Consumer has to come up with the balance of $20,500 which has to come from his savings or from a loan.  Of course, when Joe drives the car off the lot, the value drops by 20% or so.

Joe Consumer: Loses older car that was paid off.  Now, he’s making payments on a loan of $20,500 on a car worth $20,500.

U.S. Government: Now owes another $4,500 to bondholders.

New car company: One new car sale

Other consumer product retailer: One less sale

Environment: One more scrapped car plus environmental costs of making new car

Environment: Slightly higher average mileage for gasoline

Charities: Fewer folks donate old cars to needy charities

Used Car Buyers: With used car costs soaring, those who need a decent car end up paying more

U.S. Taxpayer: Grab your wallet

Update:  ABC News’ John Stossel does a very good job of pointing out the economic fallacy in government programs at his blog:

…Now it appears that Congress will ask not just for another billion, but another TWO billion. Look how generous Congress is with your money!

The idea is that by destroying used cars, people will buy new cars, which creates jobs. But this commits the “broken window fallacy”. That $3 billion taken from taxpayers to, essentially, destroy used cars now cannot be put towards college, or a new home, or new clothes, or anything else. Some used cars are no longer available for poor consumers to buy. If the “new car” market is helped by “Cash for Clunkers”, every other market is hurt because that $3 billion cannot be spent on anything else…

The government cannot just make up the billions needed for Cash for Clunkers out of thin air.  That money has to come, ultimately, from us as taxpayers.  Government spends more; we spend less.  Result: no net benefit. If you are interested in more on this topic, go to Stossel’s link above on the ‘broken window’ fallacy as put forth originally by a 19th century French economist, Frederic Bastiat.

If you want to see how much actual environmental benefit we have accrued under Cash for Clunkers, go to the Political Calculations blog right here.  They have a handy online tool that helps you do the calculations.  Here is a summary of the findings:

…Using the default numbers, we find that it takes a very long time for taxpayers to get their money’s worth for what they were required to spend to support the “Cash for Clunkers” program. At 26.5 years, the time needed to obtain the perceived benefits of reduced CO2 emissions will very likely outstrip the useful life of the new “green” vehicle, suggesting that taxpayers will never realize a positive environmental return on the $4,500 they provided to subsidize the new car sale…

The cost for the unintended consequences and the collateral damage from Cash for Clunkers is rising. As is quite common, Congress never really did its homework on this issue.  As a result, they have wasted money on a program that did very little, if any, economic good and clearly has had a net, negative environmental impact.

Congressional Cash for Clunkers

Kurt Brouwer August 7th, 2009

Update: Reuters / Yahoo reports that Congress is having second thoughts on the new jet purchase outlined below:

U.S. House leaders have dropped plans to spend $550 million in the Air Force budget on passenger jets used by lawmakers and senior government officials, officials said on Monday.

The House of Representatives reversed the move to upgrade the executive jet fleet after public criticism, opposition from other lawmakers and the Defense Department had said it did not need more planes that it had requested…

wsj-af-jet-na-az520_jet_f_20090806153827.jpg

Source: Wall Street Journal / U.S. Air Force

I bumped and updated this post because the story just got bigger and better.  Or, worse if you are a taxpayer. Turns out the tab for the new Congressional “Cash for Clunkers” VIP government jets is $550 million, not the $200 million reported a few days ago.

The Wall Street Journal reports [emphasis added]:

Congress plans to spend $550 million to buy eight jets, a substantial upgrade to the fleet used by federal officials at a time when lawmakers have criticized the use of corporate jets by companies receiving taxpayer funds.

The hypocrisy seemingly knows no bounds.  At a time when most Americans are cutting back, Congress is splurging over half a trillion billion dollars on new, luxury jets.  It’s doubtful they really need them at all.  The WSJ report continues:

Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, said the Department of Defense didn’t request the additional planes and doesn’t need them. “We ask for what we need and only what we need,” he told reporters Wednesday. “We’ve always frowned upon earmarks and additives that are above and beyond what we ask for.”

Congress turned harshly critical of companies that fly executives on private jets in the weeks following the government bailout of banks and auto makers last year. General Motors, Chrysler LLC and Citigroup Inc. were among those caught in the cross hairs of angry lawmakers.

And, given the outrage heaped on corporate leaders last year, it is doubly shocking that Congress seemingly sees no conflict with this purchase:

Cash for Clunkers: Congressional Style 

This really should be viewed as Congress simply taking its turn at the Cash for Clunkers extravaganza.  Sure, we’re talking corporate jets not compact hybrids, but the principle is the same, right?  Trade in older, used vehicle for nice, shiny new one.

I, for one, am very happy that our Congressional overlords will be able to keep flying in style in nice new jets.  Not those old, worn-out private jets they had before.  And, naturally, income taxes will have to go up because somebody has to pay for these big toys.

Here is an interior shot from Gulfstream.  Looks comfy, doesn’t it?

rawstory-gulfstream-imagephp.jpeg

Source: Raw Story

House Orders Up Three Elite Jets (RollCall.com, August 5, 2009, Paul Singer)

Last year, lawmakers excoriated the CEOs of the Big Three automakers for traveling to Washington, D.C., by private jet to attend a hearing about a possible bailout of their companies.

But apparently Congress is not philosophically averse to private air travel: At the end of July, the House approved nearly $200 million for the Air Force to buy three elite Gulfstream jets for ferrying top government officials and Members of Congress.

The Air Force had asked for one Gulfstream 550 jet (price tag: about $65 million) as part of an ongoing upgrade of its passenger air service.

But the House Appropriations Committee, at its own initiative, added to the 2010 Defense appropriations bill another $132 million for two more airplanes and specified that they be assigned to the D.C.-area units that carry Members of Congress, military brass and top government officials…

Flying commercial is for the little people, don’t you agree.

Update:  A commenter at The Corner made an interesting point, which is that there are many, many good used jets languishing on the market these days at 40-60% less than a new jet.  Even if Congress and the other bureaucrats really needed the jets, they could have purchased late model used jets for much less.

It’s also somewhat telling that they are ordering 3 brand news G550′s at a time when the private jet market is literally swimming in deeply discounted, pre-owned corporate jets.

It is estimated that 20% of the global private jet fleet is currently for sale and prices for pre-owned aircraft have tumbled 40-60% based on the model specifics.

Maybe instead of appropriating money they don’t have to buy brand new jets, Congress should offer to buy the corporate jets that GM and Citibank put on the market?

I personally think it’s a mistake for our representatives to fly in non-commercial government-owned jets.  They already are living and working in the bubble known as Washington DC.  It would be good for them to rub shoulders with citizens on flights to and from.

One additional point is that the purchase price of $550 million is one thing.  Ongoing, annual operating costs are on top of the purchase price.  I wonder what the annual tab will be?

Congress Gets $550 Million in New Toys

Kurt Brouwer August 5th, 2009

wsj-af-jet-na-az520_jet_f_20090806153827.jpg

Source: Wall Street Journal / U.S. Air Force

I bumped this updated post back up to the top because the story just got bigger and better.  Turns out the tab for the new VIP government jets is $550 million, not the $200 million reported a few days ago.  The Wall Street Journal reports [emphasis added]:

Congress plans to spend $550 million to buy eight jets, a substantial upgrade to the fleet used by federal officials at a time when lawmakers have criticized the use of corporate jets by companies receiving taxpayer funds.

The hypocrisy seemingly knows no bounds.  At a time when most Americans are cutting back, Congress is splurging over half a trillion dollars on new, luxury jets.  It’s doubtful they really need them at all.  The WSJ report continues:

Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, said the Department of Defense didn’t request the additional planes and doesn’t need them. “We ask for what we need and only what we need,” he told reporters Wednesday. “We’ve always frowned upon earmarks and additives that are above and beyond what we ask for.”

Congress turned harshly critical of companies that fly executives on private jets in the weeks following the government bailout of banks and auto makers last year. General Motors, Chrysler LLC and Citigroup Inc. were among those caught in the cross hairs of angry lawmakers.

And, given the outrage heaped on corporate leaders last year, it is doubly shocking that Congress seemingly sees no conflict with this purchase:

Congress: Flying in Style 

I, for one, am very happy that our Congressional overlords will be able to keep flying in style in nice, shiny new jets.  Not those old, worn-out private jets they had before.  And, naturally, income taxes will have to go up because somebody has to pay for these big toys, right?

Sure is a pretty jet though.  Here is an interior shot from Gulfstream.  Looks comfy, doesn’t it?

rawstory-gulfstream-imagephp.jpeg

Source: Raw Story

House Orders Up Three Elite Jets (RollCall.com, August 5, 2009, Paul Singer)

Last year, lawmakers excoriated the CEOs of the Big Three automakers for traveling to Washington, D.C., by private jet to attend a hearing about a possible bailout of their companies.

But apparently Congress is not philosophically averse to private air travel: At the end of July, the House approved nearly $200 million for the Air Force to buy three elite Gulfstream jets for ferrying top government officials and Members of Congress.

The Air Force had asked for one Gulfstream 550 jet (price tag: about $65 million) as part of an ongoing upgrade of its passenger air service.

But the House Appropriations Committee, at its own initiative, added to the 2010 Defense appropriations bill another $132 million for two more airplanes and specified that they be assigned to the D.C.-area units that carry Members of Congress, military brass and top government officials…

Flying commercial is for the little people, don’t you agree.

Update:  A commenter at The Corner made an interesting point, which is that there are many, many good used jets languishing on the market these days at 40-60% less than a new jet.  Even if Congress and the other bureaucrats really needed the jets, they could have purchased late model used jets for much less.

It’s also somewhat telling that they are ordering 3 brand news G550′s at a time when the private jet market is literally swimming in deeply discounted, pre-owned corporate jets.

It is estimated that 20% of the global private jet fleet is currently for sale and prices for pre-owned aircraft have tumbled 40-60% based on the model specifics.

Maybe instead of appropriating money they don’t have to buy brand new jets, Congress should offer to buy the corporate jets that GM and Citibank put on the market?

I personally think it’s a mistake for our representatives to fly in non-commercial government-owned jets.  They already are living and working in the bubble known as Washington DC.  It would be good for them to rub shoulders with citizens on flights to and from.

One additional point is that the purchase price of $550 million is one thing.  Ongoing, annual operating costs are on top of the purchase price.  Flying commercial is for the little people.

« Prev - Next »