Quotulatiousness

June 8, 2010

Consumer debt doesn’t follow the script

Filed under: Economics, Media, USA — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 07:49

Or, in a demonstration of individual rationality, doesn’t follow the script where consumers sacrifice themselves and go even deeper in debt to spark further economic recovery:

While some pundits out there might have you believe that the US economic recovery remains solidly on track, Friday’s May jobs report threw a spanner into those notions, and the latest reading on consumer credit offers little evidence that the crucial consumer intends to share with Uncle Sam the burden of bolstering the economy.

The Federal Reserve’s report on April consumer credit today shows total credit outstanding rose a little less than $1 billion, following a revised $5.4 billion drop in March; March credit was originally reported up $2 billion.

Within the details, the item that jumps out most is the decrease in revolving credit, which fell at a 12% annual rate and declined for the 19th straight month. Revolving credit outstanding has fallen 14%, or roughly $138 billion, since autumn of 2008. Non-revolving is roughly flat since late ‘08.

It would help if the pundits would settle on one of the two diametrically opposed roles that consumers are “supposed to” assume. At an individual level, consumers are being lashed for their profligate spending and borrowing habits, and excoriated for their unprecedented levels of personal debt. This is bad, the pundits say (and I don’t disagree): individuals and families should not be taking on so much debt and efforts to reduce outstanding debt are praised. However, consumers as a group are expected to spend, spend, spend in order to help pull the retail sector back into healthy growth.

So if they do the right thing as individuals, they’re doing the wrong thing for the economy as a whole? Perhaps the emphasis on consumer-led recovery is mistaken, especially given the levels of debt that consumers have already taken on.

June 7, 2010

QotD: Investing in well-managed companies

Filed under: Economics, Humour, Quotations — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 13:57

When companies make money, we assume they are well-managed. That perception is reinforced by the CEOs of those companies who are happy to tell you all the clever things they did to make it happen. The problem with relying on this source of information is that CEOs are highly skilled in a special form of lying called leadership. Leadership involves convincing employees and investors that the CEO has something called a vision, a type of optimistic hallucination that can come true only in an environment in which the CEO is massively overcompensated and the employees have learned to be less selfish.

Scott Adams, “Betting on the Bad Guys”, Wall Street Journal, 2010-06-07

January 21, 2010

Planning for retirement

Filed under: Cancon, Economics — Tags: — Nicholas @ 08:28

I’m one of those bad savers you keep reading about in the financial pages: I’m not saving enough for my retirement. Of course, depending on where you get your retirement advice from, few of us can save enough to retire comfortably. Here’s what I wrote about this back in 2004:

I’ve been saving money in my registered retirement savings plan, although I’ve never been able to afford to put away the legal maximum for my income (I’ve come close, but never hit the max). This is literally the only tax dodge available to Canadians earning less than $200,000 per year: the money you save in that year is deducted from your taxable income and the interest it earns is also tax-deferred until retirement.

This means I’m saving a theoretical 14% of my pre-tax income as provision against starvation once I retire. Sounds reasonable, no?

According to the banks, no. If you go to any of the major Canadian bank websites and look at their online retirement planning tools, you’ll discover that no Canadian can ever really afford to retire. In my case, going on the (doubtful) assumption that I continue to earn the same as I do now until I retire, I need to save approximately 105% of my pre-tax income in order to barely maintain my standard of living after retirement. If I manage to stay employed for a few years after age 65, I cut that down to needing to save only 94% of my pre-tax income.

In the most hopeful scenario, where I work until age 78 and die the same year, I won’t go bankrupt.

Okay, I’m exaggerating, but not by much. I’ve always found it depressing to do this sort of planning, and the bank websites (which of course are biased to encourage you to keep more money with them) sure don’t help. For example, the CIBC retirement calculator says I need to save just over 75% of my take-home pay every month in order to be able to retire at 65. Aaaaggghhh!!!

Since those balmy, optimistic days, I’ve gone through several jobs, and had no opportunity to match my earlier savings rate. The last couple of years, I’ve even had to draw down my savings to cover periods of unemployment. So maybe I need to work to age 81 before I can retire . . .

However, perhaps the situation isn’t quite as dire as all that. David Aston has an article in MoneySense magazine which at least avoids the typical “gotta save multi-millions” line the banks tend to give you:

This is the worst-case scenario, but it’s good to know what you’ll need if you just want to scrape by, if only because it gives you a starting point to build from. For this scenario, the costing has already been done for us in a recent study, called Basic Living Expenses for the Canadian Elderly, by three University of Waterloo researchers. The study describes a no-frills retirement as one in which a couple rents (rather than owns), has no vehicles (so they take public transit), and it doesn’t include spare cash for even minor indulgences such as cable TV or alcohol. This is not the stuff of most people’s retirement dreams, but the study does budget for three nutritious home-prepared meals a day, a one-bedroom apartment plus utilities, along with typical health-care costs and other essentials like clothing and personal-care products.

How much do you need?

The study’s authors conclude that the annual cost of such a retirement in five major Canadian cities ranges from $20,200 to $27,400. Here’s the good news: to achieve this bare-bones scenario you don’t have to save a penny. The combination of full Old Age Security (OAS) and the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) program for low-income seniors pretty much covers all your basic needs, at least outside the highest-rent cities. If you and your spouse are at least 65, those government programs would provide you with a combined $22,750 a year if you have no other income. “We’ve kind of made sure the Canadian elderly don’t live in poverty but we’ve given them, like, 50 cents more than the poverty line,” says study co-author Robert Brown.

The scenario does, however, require the Canadian government to make some pretty fast changes to how it’s funding the OAS, GIS, and CPP programs. CPP is, in theory, fully self-funded but the coming “bulge” in retirement rates from aging Baby Boomers will almost certainly require both increased premiums and top-up from other government revenue streams. Oh, and increased claw-backs from other income retired seniors may have.

September 22, 2009

Retirement planning

Filed under: Cancon, Economics — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 11:24

Dark Water Muse had a post a few days ago about the troubles with retirement planning (he’s just gone through the process).

I guess what only just in recent days became DWM’s “trailer park” retirement lifestyle, which he can almost afford, becomes his “cardboard box” retirement lifestyle. Assuming the healthcare system can afford then to cover the costs of treating paper cuts.

The scary part. DWM is one of the “lucky” ones, in a really good position, according to financial advisors. If this is true then how can anybody, in the past 30 years, have realistically expected “average” North American to be able to afford to retire? Aren’t these the same bong puffers who have been trying to eradicate the poppy fields in Afghanistan?

I guess addiction really is an irrational behavior, even when you dress it up and call it economics.

I wrote a comment, and then thought it might be a useful thing to expand on it a bit here:

This is a multi-pronged problem that will yield to no single solution.

The mere existance of the Canada Pension Plan (and the regular payroll deductions that fund current retirees) lull far too many Canadians into thinking that they’re going to be receiving enough money from CPP to carry on their pre-retirement lifestyle. That’s a huge, unconscious reason for people to fail to save for retirement.

Many Canadians have pension plans that are tied directly to their current employer. For the tiny fraction who successfully keep working for that firm/organization all the way to retirement age, it’s a winning bet. For far too many, three years in one plan, five years in another, seven years in a third will yield three miniscule pension cheques (far less than the amount if they’d been fifteen years in a single plan), as most pensions are geared to long-term employment. Given the commonly quoted notion that most Canadians will have three careers between entering the workforce and retiring, planning on putting in 20-25 years of pensionable work with a big firm is a pipe dream.

The banks and other finance organizations don’t help, either, as many of their print and online offerings for potential customers over-estimate financial needs (“What? I need $3 million to retire at 55? That’s impossible!”).

Schools don’t even attempt to provide financial planning information for students, and even if they did, who among us thought about retirement before age 35? It would likely be a wasted effort, unless it was a mandatory part of the graduation requirements. And even then, everyone under 25 thinks they’ll either live forever or be dead by 30, so it wouldn’t make much practical difference.

I’ve been in the working world for nearly 30 years, yet I’ve only ever worked for companies that had pension plans twice. In neither case did I work there long enough to accumulate any worthwhile seniority in the pension scheme (and given that neither company is still around today, I probably didn’t lose much). Among the other companies I’ve worked for, only two had Group RRSP plans (I think the closest US equivalent would be a 401(k) account). . . which paradoxically have been great for my long-term financial health. The broker for the plan at the first company is still the guy I call to get investment advice (each of us has moved on to different firms more than once, but it’s the personal relationship that matters).

I lost a lot of paper wealth in the last 12 months (at the worst, I was down over 45%). My investments — my retirement savings, that is — are back up to about 85% of their peak. If I hadn’t had to withdraw cash during periods of unemployment, I’d be closer to 95%. I’m nowhere near the multi-millions that the bank “planning software” says I should have at this point in my career, but I’m not panicking, yet.

« Newer Posts

Powered by WordPress