Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Super-Failure…

The result of the U.S. debt ceiling’s dysfunctional debate this summer was Congress’s passing of the Budget Control Act of 2011, which created the Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction, more commonly known as the Super Committee. The committee was made up of 12 members of Congress, evenly divided between the House and Senate and both political parties. Their objective by November 23 was to find ways to reduce the deficit by at least $1.2 trillion (to be spread out over 10 years). Unfortunately, they failed to do so.

Failure of the congressional joint committee on deficit reduction likely means little chance to make progress on comprehensive tax or entitlement reform before the November 2012 election.

Now that the economic anchor has dropped, Washington still has to make difficult choices that will likely be a drag on already slow – but recently improving – economic growth. However, given the resiliency in Washington and Congress’s constant focus on electability over sustainability, it would not be surprising if they found a way around the mandatory cuts. After all, the ratings agencies have said that a debt downgrade is not imminent, which could have the political effect of inspiring further inaction.

Failure of the committee may present some economic hurdles, as it reduces the chances of extending recent tax breaks like the payroll tax cuts that are set to expire at the end of this year. Further, we will see mandatory cuts in entitlements and defense to the tune of around $600 billion each. These enforcement mechanisms do not take effect for 14 months, and how those cuts will be enacted is currently a bit unclear. Some members of Congress are already talking about reconfiguring the cuts.  We should have more clarity on where the cuts come from as we move closer to the time they are enacted in 2013. These automatic cuts were supposed to be painful enough that they could force agreement in Washington, but it now appears that our representatives in Congress would prefer to throw out an anchor on economic growth rather than tackle spending. Failure to reach a deal has the potential to decrease GDP growth next year by nearly 1 percent, attributed primarily to the ending of some tax breaks and not extending unemployment benefits.  Failure also kindled fears about Washington’s willingness to overcome political gridlock and take the necessary steps to improve the nation’s fiscal health.

Despite the failure, Standard & Poor’s reaffirmed that it would keep the U.S. credit rating at AA+ after removing its top AAA grade on August 5. Moody’s Investors Service reaffirmed its AAA rating with a negative outlook. In a statement following the super committee’s announcement that it was unable to reach a compromise, Fitch Ratings noted that it said in August that a super committee failure would probably result in a “negative rating action,” (likely a revision of its outlook to negative), and that a review would be concluded by the end of this month. It is worth noting that bond investors have shrugged off the August downgrade, as yields on 10-year U.S. treasuries stood at 2.56 percent on August 5th, the time of the S&P downgrade of U.S. debt, and are now around 2 percent.

With an economy still trying to climb out of one of the worst financial crises in history, I believe more political leadership will be needed to right the economic ship.

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

How Should We Measure Inflation?

Those readers who have heard me speak at various engagements will note that I devote a significant amount of time focusing on inflation.  My argument is always in finding the correct measure.  While the Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes their monthly change to Consumer Price Index, it remains to be seen how much “trust” should be put into these numbers.

Earlier in the year, the Wall Street Journal Online published a great piece on why the “official” inflation numbers are probably skewed.  All of the adjustments to the calculation of CPI over the last 30 years have made CPI seem “more bearable”.

Two areas that I think are of major concern in the calculation are the principles of substitution and hedonics.  Substitution simply states that when the cost of fresh vegetables creeps to high, the government calculation assumes you buy canned veggies—and thus any additional inflation on vegetables is avoided.  Hedonics attempts to value a product based on the values of its underlying constituent parts—the best example is a piece of technology.  CPI takes into account that if the same technology is the same today as it was three years ago, that the product has experienced negative inflation (deflation) due to the fact that the parts used in today’s model are better or more efficient.  I will let you judge whether that argument has merit or not.

The bottom line is that the calculation of CPI is constantly changing, and at the suggestion of one “rogue” economist John Williams, if we still calculated inflation the way we did when Jimmy Carter was president, the official rate wouldn't be current CPI of 3.7%--it would be closer to 10%.  These factors tell you how central a concern that inflation should be in the financial planning discussion.