Author: Sherry Jarrell

The ageing of the USA, Part One

Back to the future – a new way of seeing forward

Part One of a three-part paper previously published by Professor Sherry Jarrell

Market research on the ageing of the U.S. baby boomer generation has focused on the spending habits of these older consumers. A new approach enables marketing researchers to observe the future now: Examine income and spending patterns from metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) with age demographics similar to those projected for the U.S. economy in 2020 and 2025. With knowledge of these trends, they can begin preparing to meet the demands for particular products and services.

“Find a comfortable couch, lie back, and close your eyes. … Let your mind wander toward the future. Move, slowly, to the year 2030. Now open your eyes. What do you see? You see a country whose collective population is older than that in Florida today. You see a country where walkers outnumber strollers.” Laurence J. Kotlikoff and Scott Burns in The Coming Generational Storm (The MIT Press, 2004).

Projected Age Distribution, U.S. Bureau of Census data

There has been much speculation regarding the effects of the aging population on the U.S. economy. By the year 2025, more than 18% of the U.S. population is projected to be age 65 or older, greater than the percentage in Florida today. This has led some to describe the future of the United States as “a nation of Floridas.” Furthermore, the aging of the United States is not expected to pass with the demographic bulge produced by baby boomers (those born between 1946 and 1964). The U.S. population also is aging because of increased life expectancy and decreased numbers of offspring. As a result, current research projects that the U.S. age profile soon will transform from the current pyramid shape, with older groups at the top, to more of a barrel shape, with roughly 40% of the population divided fairly evenly between the youngest (under age 15) and oldest (over age 65) groups. This new profile will persist for decades.

Although much has been said about aging baby boomers leading to potential crises in Social Security and Medicare, we are more interested in the economic prospects of their retirement as they relate to consumer spending: in particular, whether they have saved enough to maintain their standards of living in retirement. In this regard, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reviewed studies from the past decade on the retirement prospects of aging Americans, and found evidence that varied with the standard used to define “enough.” Some studies defined it as the level that maintained the retiree’s working-age standard of living, whereas others defined it as levels that made the retiree as well off as his or her parents at the same age.

The picture that emerges from the CBO study is that baby boomers, relative to their parents at the same age, have higher real incomes, are preparing for retirement at the same pace, and have accumulated more private wealth. Furthermore, the savings behavior of baby boomers and other future retirees is dependent on their views of the health and stability of government benefit programs. If they believe that they will receive all of the government benefits they have earned, then they will tend to work and save less. If they believe that these programs are in trouble, then they might increase savings and postpone retirement.

What impact will changing age demographics have on future spending patterns? We obtain a more complete picture of future spending by observing aggregate spending patterns in local economies that resemble the future now: those cities where “walkers outnumber strollers” today. This novel research approach is based on actual observed data, rather than on speculation and long-term statistical forecasts, both of which are notorious for inaccuracy.

In the next post, we discuss our sometimes surprising findings on the spending patterns in the U.S. city of the future.

By Sherry Jarrell

Reflecting on insider trading

Time to Reassess Insider Trading Rules?

On the face of it, prohibiting insider trading seems to be fair and reasonable.

US insider trading laws, refined over time in court on a case-by-case basis, define “trading on the basis of inside InsiderTradinginformation” as any time a person trades while aware of material nonpublic information (US Securities and Exchange Commissions Rule 10b5-1, which also creates an affirmative defense for pre-planned trades.) SEC regulation FD (“Fair Disclosure”) also requires that if a company intentionally discloses material non-public information to one person, it must simultaneously disclose that information to the public at large; in an unintentional disclosure, the company must make a public disclosure “promptly.” Lastly, the Williams Act gives the SEC regulatory authority over insider trading in takeovers and tender offers.

Read more about Insider Trading

Lies, damn lies and Government statistics!

Do the last US 3rd Quarter GDP figures stand up to inspection?

The press recently celebrated the 3.5% annualized rise in the third quarter in reported U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP).  The figures were widely reported with, for example, CNNMoney, carrying the following headline and opening remarks:

Economy finally back in gear

Government says GDP grew 3.5% in third quarter, ending a year-long string of declines and coming in better than forecasts.

I urge caution in interpreting these figures at face value.  After all, the current GDP of the U.S. economy is simply the intersection of aggregate demand with aggregate supply.

As the figure below shows, GDP increases with increases in either the demand or supply curve, although increases in demand are accompanied by rising price levels while increases in supply push prices down and real incomes up.

graph

The quarterly figures make clear that the increase in demand was driven almost entirely by the expansion of government spending; the other three components of demand – consumption, business spending, and net exports, were either flat or falling.

Government spending is inherently short-term; it does not create wealth or enable sustainable growth.  In fact, neither consumption nor net exports create sustainable economic growth either.   Only business investment in new productive equipment (which includes business fixed investment, new residential housing and additions to inventory) has the potential to create sustainable growth in U.S. GDP, and then only when the investment leads to a permanent increase in the productivity of the business, namely a rightward (increased output per input) or downward (decreased cost) shift in the Aggregate Supply curve.

And there was little chance that the reported increase in GDP resulted from a long-term increase in the productive capacity or efficiency of the U.S. economy, as Business Investment was soundly negative in the 3rd quarter of 2009.

By Sherry Jarrell

[P.S. Karl Denninger at Market Ticker also raised big question marks about these figures. Ed.]

More about consumer protection for financial products.

Many ideas are more complex that we appreciate.

One of the great bonuses in being part of the author group of Learning from Dogs is that we are all having to dig in deeper on issues than we might otherwise do.  Part of the weakness of our modern busy lives is that we run the risk of forming or reinforcing opinions ‘on the fly’.  The modern media tends towards this approach.  But on a Blog that strives to write about integrity it behoves us all to be more careful about what is correct if, indeed, there is a correct answer.

John Lewis first posed the idea of whether financial products should be regulated in terms of consumer safety, like your toaster!  Sherry Jarrell then replied to that as a comment which was worth being made a separate Post.  That Post then attracted comments and, again, in amongst them was another detailed reply from Sherry that has been made the subject of this Post.  As implied, many of today’s issues are far too important to be left to the headline writers.  Here’s Sherry:

Read more of Sherry’s views on this topic

U.S. Cash for Clunkers Program a Failure?

Is there evidence that this US programme has been a failure?

I was asked by a reader recently about my claim that the Cash for Clunkers program was a failure.  He said, and I quote, “And your proof is…?”  Here is my response:

My conclusion that the Cash for Clunkers program was a failure is based on three factors.

One, it did not have the intended consequences on the environment; for those folks who purchased a marginally more fuel efficient car now, rather than later, the added fuel efficiency was likely more than offset by the pollution generated by destroying the old car, and by the loss in additional fuel efficiency they would have enjoyed had they waited a year or two to replace their current vehicle with an even later, even more fuel efficient model year.

Two, the costs of the program, which are much greater than the $4,500 rebate, far exceed any benefits generated. Abrams and Parsons in the Economists’ Voice estimate that the costs of the program exceeded the benefits by about $2000 per car.  A recent study by Edmunds.com put the cost of the program at $24,000 per car  once the cars purchases that would have occurred during that period anyway are deducted (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2009/10/620000657/1). I think the real cost is somewhere in-between, but closer to $24,000 than $2,000. 

The true costs of the program include but are not limited to the additional paperwork and private and public workers needed to administer the program, the interest costs to dealerships of financing the rebate program while awaiting the government checks (some less capitalized dealerships actually went out of business because of the program), the costs of destroying the old vehicles, and the cost of lives lost and injuries sustained in accidents in smaller, less safe but more fuel efficient cars, just to mention a few.

Last, this “injection” into the economy — which, in reality, is the blatant substitution of private consumption choices with public policy, and an affront to our economic freedom — costs the economy untold sums by putting off the inevitable failure of automotive companies that fail to produce cars the population values sufficiently to keep the auto companies in business without being propped up by the government.

Case in point: GM’s plunge of 45% and Chrysler’s fall of 43% in the months following the rebate program; Honda and Toyota also reported double-digit slides, while Kia and Hyundai had double-digit increases.

New car sales fell in September as the predicted post-“cash for clunkers” slump dragged the U.S. market down to its lowest levels in seven months.

I wish it weren’t so, but I’m afraid that good business is not the strong suit of our policymakers.

By Sherry Jarrell

Sherry responds to John

A Post published today by John Lewis raises the question of why not consumer protection for financial ‘products.

Sherry’s reply.

A great question, John: why do we not have a threshold level of safety for financial products, as we do with cars and toys?

Well, for one, if a financial product “fails,” the consequence is purely financial – it is not injury or death.  A financial product simply represents a financial investment today in exchange for financial payoffs tomorrow.

The less certain those payoffs, the higher the minimum required return on that investment. If the returns were certified or regulated in some way, risk would be reduced, and the required return would also fall.  Limiting risk exposure throws out the baby with the bath water:  less risk means lower returns on the investment.  Look at the real returns to U.S. Treasury Bills – they are almost zero!

There is a role for regulation in financial products and that is for disclosure of relevant information.  When we invest in a financial product, we are putting our money at risk in exchange for future expected cash flows.  We forecast those cash flows on the basis of material information about the firm, its products or services, and its management and strategy.

Even here there is a fine line between the right to know and proprietary information that enables a firm to invest its own funds in the hope of generating a large return in exchange for taking risks.

The Securities and Exchange Commission’s requirement for a 20-day window between the time a bidder makes a tender offer for a target and the time the target shareholders must decide whether to accept the offer or not is an example of a regulation that crosses the line, in my view.

In a misguided attempt to protect shareholders from fly-by-night tender offers, the SEC has created an environment where multiple competing bids can arise, driving down the return to the original bidder and limiting the incentives for firms to productively redeploy assets through tender offers.

By Sherry Jarrell

Zombie Stocks: Not for the faint of heart

Prof. Sherry Jarrell in the news

A news release by Wake Forest University has been picked up by at least one publication. It reads as follows:
Two weeks before Halloween, the Securities and Exchange Commission again warned investors against buying shares of bankrupt companies, but like those creatures in horror films that rise from the dead, so-called “zombie” stocks–shares of companies that failed during the financial crisis–are still on the march.zombies

Take, for example, Washington Mutual and Lehman Brothers. At the end of last year, their stocks traded at 2 cents and 3 cents per share, respectively. With no future earnings in sight, shares of Washington Mutual recently traded around 20 cents, and Lehman Brothers shares have hovered around 15 cents–spectacular gains fueled by what many consider nothing more than gambling.

Critics have called on the SEC to halt the trading of such stocks to protect unsophisticated investors who might be lured into unwise trades. But Professor Sherry Jarrell, who teaches a graduate-level class on investments and portfolio management in the Wake Forest University Schools of Business, disagrees.

While Jarrell doesn’t think investing in zombie stocks is a sure-fire profitable strategy, she doesn’t consider it gambling either, because there is an expectation of gain. Jarrell also doesn’t believe those who are trading zombie stocks are ignorant or unsophisticated. Jarrell says:

To outlaw these stocks means that you’ve truncated an avenue for people to express their different risk preferences. If someone wants to go on that haunted trail, let them. It’s not like they’re taking advantage of people on the other side of the trade.

Washington Mutual and Lehman Brothers lost their standing to be listed on stock exchanges, so traders have to keep up with prices through a quotation service known as the Over the Counter Bulletin Board, which unsophisticated investors are unlikely to access. Other troubled companies, such as Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and AIG, whose shares are widely considered to be zombie stocks, are still listed on major exchanges. The federal government’s own backing of those companies weakens any argument against allowing individuals to invest in them, if they dare.

One project Jarrell assigns her students is to identify a publicly traded stock they believe the market has significantly mispriced. By definition, she says, the exercise requires the same calculation made by traders of zombie stocks–reaching a different conclusion about a stock’s future cash flows and risks than that of the market.

Jarrell points out that all investments carry a degree of risk proportional to potential returns, and investors have varying tolerances for risk. Some hide from risk; others seek it out.

She recalls a study some years ago that found striking similarities in the blood chemistry of day traders on Wall Street and jet fighter pilots. “It turns out they need a certain amount of danger to feel normal,” Jarrell says. “They seek risk in order to feel comfortable.”

By Sherry Jarrell

A Better Idea: let’s limit TARP legislator pay!

Saving taxpayers some money?

Seems that Congress is hell bent on replacing the best-functioning labor market in the world with their own unique brand of wisdom.  Well, I have a better idea.  Why don’t we slash in half the pay of all those Congressional leaders who came up with the TARP idea in the first place, since they are spending our money, and I think it is clear that they are spending our money unwisely, which is precisely the logic they use to confiscate the salaries and bonuses of the bail-out executives.

Moral of the story?  Government should not be in the business of trying to run a business. The TARP bailout should have never seen the light of day.  With no TARP bailout, Congress would not have had it’s latest excuse for grabbing up yet more of the private economy’s resources for trying to put this country back on track toward improved productivity, output, jobs, income, and security.

By Sherry Jarrell

Cash for Clunkers program a failure

The law of unintended consequences

It should come as no surprise to anyone that U.S. car companies are slumping once again.  The Cash for Clunkers program was a wasteful, inefficient publicity stunt or, worse, an actual attempt by the US Federal Government to stimulate the economy.  The worse part is that the program cost the economy jobs: many healthy, profitable dealerships had their company taken away from them by government edict under this program, never to return.  It’s almost criminal.

By Sherry Jarrell

A tax is a tax is a ….COST !

The role of taxes.

We’ve talked a lot about taxes as revenue to the Government and the inefficiency of government spending on this Learning from Dogs, but a far more important issue is the impact of taxes on the costs and output of businesses.

Any imposed cost to business is a “tax,” whether it’s called that or not.  And any tax is an additional cost to that business, which lowers its output, reduces employment, and raises prices of goods and services to you and me.

Read more about taxes