The Allegator

"I do not deny the allegation, I deny the allegator." – Jesse Jackson

Home Archives for Economy

The Rise of the Risk Management Industry

As he was leaving office, Dwight Eisenhower felt a responsibility to warn the nation of coming threat from within, “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex.” These turned out to be words booth wise and unheeded, as our military expenditures now total nearly that of the rest of the combined nations of the world.

I’m seeing a new threat from within, rising and to some extent already risen. The risk management industry, with insurance companies at its core, has wormed its way, insidiously and  in many layers, throughout nearly every industry and organization in these United States. This cancer has grown much deeper, though through much the same mechanism as the military industrial complex; by taking advantage of fear, both that of the general populace and corporate and government entities.

A friend of mine recently posted a saying: “A book is the only thing you can buy that can make you richer”. I would argue that another profitable purchase would be a Congressman. While I do think there are some career fence sitters in office who pretty much just vote in whichever direction offers them the most favors, I like to think most individuals in government feel like they are doing the right thing, though I think getting to that coveted and contested office nearly requires one to be of the opinion that the ends justify the means, and that it would be distasteful to look too closely at how the sausage was made.

Unlike these individuals, organizations, such as corporations, unions, and political parties, are generally run or heavily influenced by committee and legal advisers. The people of these committees see it as their job to do what is in the interest of those they represent. If, for example an industry of large donors made it clear that their donations to a political party would keep coming so long as the party voted in their favor, then it is quite likely that the party would choose to endorse candidates who have agreed to vote accordingly. They justify this by telling themselves that if they don’t go along, then the other party will, and will win, which logically they would see as being a worse choice than taking the support themselves and  then trying to enact their own ideology. The beauty of this situation from the donor’s perspective is that they really can’t lose. All they need to do is give support to both sides and threaten to withdraw it from the one who gives them the least in return.

These days, everyone in business is obsessed with avoiding liability. The blame usually comes down on people who start frivolous lawsuits, but really, the system is designed to encourage such things. There are three main players in this: businesses trying to avoid being bankrupted by a large lawsuit, insurance companies trying to sell coverage without actually having to pay anything out, and the individual or government agencies trying to get money for a perceived violation.

Kaufman’s Law: A policy is a restrictive document to prevent a recurrence of a single incident, in which that incident is never mentioned.

Business will hire people to keep track of regulations and create appropriate policies, and it isn’t just legal regulations they are following. Insurance companies have their own regulations, some of which must be followed to get coverage, and others which will nullify their responsibility to pay if they are not followed. The nature of such preventative policies is that they raise both the cost and the complexity of doing business to the point where it is nearly impossible for a small business to be competitive. The regulations have gotten so thick that no one even knows them all. This is of course fine with government and insurance companies alike, since anyone not knowing they have violated a regulation is still going to end up paying a fine or be denied coverage as a consequence.

The profit motive of insurance companies should not be discounted. If nothing else, the mere fact that they are profitable means that they are an inefficiency in the system, a middleman who increases wait times, and decreases care options. Obamacare pretends to be a cost saver in the system. The early claims were that it wouldn’t raise costs to taxpayers, that the healthy would be made to pay for the sick. I was disgusted to read this piece of economic ignorance on CNN Money:

“Getting subsidy-eligible people to enroll is important for the overall success of the exchanges. The first to sign up are likely those desperate for health insurance, so they are a sicker and costlier population. They’ll pay for insurance with or without subsidies. But they must be balanced out by younger and healthier folks, many of whom are likely to be enticed by subsidies, experts say. The subsidies were expected to be very popular: The Congressional Budget Office projected that 86% of the 7 million people enrolling in the exchanges for 2014 would be eligible.”

The second problem is one of outreach. Many people, particularly among the lower income, don’t know that they are eligible for subsidies or even that they have to sign up for insurance, said Dan Mendelson, chief executive of Avalere Health, an advisory company for insurers.
“This requires aggressive messaging,” he said. “They need to go into these communities and get them to sign up. The president has been spending his time apologizing.”

So first, the healthy were going to be made to pay for the sick. Now the healthy will have money taken out of their taxes and handed back to them, only to be forced to give it to the insurance companies. And then there is this article in Businessweek, showing that there is a provision in the bill making sure that if the insurance companies find their costs to be too high, that the government will backstop their losses, and also that there are cost saving measures set to make everything seem cheaper at the beginning, which fade out after three years.  Combine this with the website problems and various postponements, and it really looks to me like they are trying to stall until the midterm elections and put forward the appearance that things are great and they are just working out a few minor glitches, rather than making a bubble that will lead to bailing out the insurance companies that we have already paid three times over.

How many times over do we need to pay for our health care? Back in the day a patient went to the doctor with an ailment, saw them promptly, made decisions between the two of them and then the patient payed a reasonable fee. Now we pay insurance companies, our doctors and hospitals pay insurance companies, the government pays insurance companies, and in return, the insurance companies make us go to a doctor who is in their network, they decide what care to pay for, and if you have a problem with your bill, they leave you on hold until the creditors show up. And if that weren’t bad enough, we can’t even wash our hands of the whole thing and take care of ourselves. We’re mandated to pay for the care we don’t use.

An Excellent Website for Economic Insight

I’ve been reading the Weekly Market Comment section over at HussmanFunds for a while now as one of my top few sources of economic insight. A new post by John P. Hussman, Ph.D. goes up every Monday. Their quality and interest varies, but when he’s on a roll, I find myself re-reading the post several times throughout the week, seeking deeper understanding. A few excerpts from the October 10, 2011 post and links to other posts below:

“When Wall Street talks about the “failure” of a bank or other financial institution it means the failure of the company to pay off its own bondholders. It does not mean that depositors, counterparties or other bank customers lose money. A bank is essentially a big portfolio of assets, about 70% which are typically financed by depositors, customers and other liabilities, about 20% by the bank’s own bondholders, and about 10% with the capital of the bank’s stockholders. In a typical bank “failure,” the bank is taken into receivership by regulators, the liabilities to stockholders and bondholders are cut away, the remaining package of assets and liabilities is sold as a single entity to some other firm, the old bondholders get the proceeds of that sale, and the stockholders are wiped out. When investors willingly take a risk, and buy the stocks and bonds issued by an institution that goes on to mismanage its business, this is the appropriate outcome. Depositors and customers typically don’t lose a penny”

“If public funds are provided during a financial crisis, and it cannot be clearly demonstrated that the institution is solvent, the funds should be provided post-failure, as senior loans to a restructured institution where shareholders and existing bondholders have already been subject to losses. The interest rate should be relatively high, to encourage replacement of public funds with private ones. With few exceptions, when public funds are used to avoid major restructuring and shield private investors from losses, the result is almost inevitably a larger, less transparent, and more recklessly managed institution.”

“The same is true for government or “sovereign” debt. When Wall Street talks about “failure” of Greece, for example, it means failure of Greece to pay off its own bondholders. In trying to avoid this failure, Greece is instead forced to impose extreme austerity and depression on its citizens. From the standpoint of those citizens, Greece has already failed them painfully. Those are the choices – let bad debt “fail” or force depression on innocent citizens.”

“In 2008, the Federal Reserve created a set of off-balance sheet shell companies called “Maiden Lane” to buy undesirable long-term assets of Bear Stearns and other financial companies, justifying the purchases by appealing to Section 13.3 of the Federal Reserve Act. But if you actually read Section 13, it is clear that under the law, “discounting” means (as it has always meant) providing short-term liquidity by essentially providing a check-cashing service for obligations that are short-dated, well-collateralized, and promptly collectible. The Fed’s creation of the Maiden Lane companies to purchase bad assets was, and remains, illegal under the language and intent of the Federal Reserve Act.”

50% Contraction in the Fed’s Balance Sheet This is a great article on the Federal Reserve and it’s actions regarding interest rates and Treasuries. It’s a bit of a tough read, but if you can get through it and understand it, I think you will gain tremendous understanding of our current economic regulatory motivations and hurdles.

Handicapping QE3 This one has an in depth look at the results of the previous rounds of Quantitative Easing, and the likely timing and effects of a third round.

For more economic insight, check out the full list of Weekly Market Comments here.

National Budget Vs. Personal Budget

• U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000 • Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000 • New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000 • National debt: $14,271,000,000,000 • Recent budget cut: $ 38,500,000,000

Got it?

OK, now let’s remove 8 zeros and pretend it’s a household budget:

• Annual family income: $21,700 • Money family spent: $38,200 • New debt on credit card: $16,500 • Outstanding balance on credit card: $142,710 • Total budget cuts: $385

I’ve seen the above posted on a number of sites recently. I think it’s valid to think of the budget in these terms.

Sure, there are differences, such as our government’s ability to legally launder money, but the basic principles of home finance do relate, and taking eight zeroes off helps make things imaginable.

Considering that there are approximately 300,000,000 Americans, around half of whom don’t pay income taxes, it isn’t even too far off for figuring your own percentage of the debt.

Gimmicks aren’t going to change this chart. You can tax the people to give out loans (more debt) to small businesses, but that is mostly zero-sum. You can tax the people to pay for unemployment to encourage the unemployed to spend money to stimulate demand for products and thus create jobs, but that is like buying your employer’s product on your credit card in order to keep them paying your paycheck; It gets you nowhere or worse. You can tax the rich dry and barely make a dent in that number.

Just like in your personal finance, if you want to gain wealth, you need to provide something that someone else needs. If we aren’t selling more to foreign nations than we are buying, we are losing.

This isn’t so much a supply or demand problem as it is a relative value problem. If we are going to be on the losing side of this equation, we need to be printing money rather than borrowing it. This may not be fair to the savers, but they will fail right along with the rest of us on the current course.

Printing money eventually devalues it. A devalued currency will make imports more expensive and exports more affordable, putting us to our rightful place in the market again.

I would also support an eye-for-an-eye tariff policy to prevent socialist nations from taking advantage of us. Until one or both of these things are instituted, our economy will continue to decline.

Even with those changes, we also need to reduce our spending on the military, foreign aid, micromanaging regulations, incarceration, social programs for non-citizens, and benefits for public employees.

Why Has Going to College Gotten so Expensive?

If you went to college before the turn of the millennium and you are now trying to convince your kids to go to college, it may be worth more careful deliberation. There was a time when college was the path to a wealthy future. Back then it was one of the only ways to get a decent education.

With the advent of the internet, knowledge in many fields is at your fingertips. Unless you want to be a doctor or something similarly carefully regulated, chances are you can learn most of what you need online and at your own pace, and nearly free.

Contrast that with the current college system. Colleges are putting professors on furlough and reducing the amount of education they produce each semester. Meanwhile tuition is going up far faster than the rate of inflation. College loans have increased over 500% since 1999.

Why? What is it in the system that is justifying tuition going up while quality of education is dropping? In this case I believe it is actually a self-defeating government subsidy. Credit is tight right now. If you want a loan for most things, you have to first prove that you don’t need it. This credit crunch has hit every sector but education, in which government loans are still easily available and low interest. Combine this with the lack of work, and people are going back to school and living off loans. The natural result of this is that colleges raise tuition, since the students can afford it.

Looking back a decade, government-sponsored enterprises gave out adjustable rate mortgages to the poor, and once they had them on the hook, raised the rates. What they didn’t take into account is what would happen when they took it too far and people just defaulted and walked away. This time around, they are ensuring that it doesn’t happen again. Federal student loans follow you till you die. Bankruptcy doesn’t help. What will happen when all of this debt comes due? Will people spend the rest of their lives trying to get above water? Will the government forgive the debt on the backs of the taxpayer? Will the next credit bubble use your children as collateral? When will they stop trying to hide the debt and start working to correct it?

What still doesn’t make sense is the furloughs. If tuition is up, and full time attendance is up, and professor salaries aren’t skyrocketing, then why the furloughs? It’s because we are becoming a nation of administrators. Less than a third of your tuition goes into educating you, and the percentage of funds going to college  administrative costs is going up at a truly unreasonable rate. I’m not even saying anyone is getting fat here, just that as a society, we are spending far more on administrating producers than we are on actually producing anything.

What we need now is some transparency. Unfortunately, creating the Office of  Administrative Overview Regulation or some such won’t help. What we need is simple disclosure. Let the resulting outrage do the rest.

Kucinich on Wealth Redistribution,

Here we have a man, Dennis Kucinich, who is a contender for being the farthest left of center in our government, speaking out against the legitimacy of that government, its monetary policies, and the two party system. What surer sign can we have that the system is broken?

I’ve spoken of Dennis Kucinich before. I don’t always agree with him, but he has my support for one simple reason.  He’s one of the few honest politicians we have left who are willing to speak out against their own party, their own president, even be the only dissenting vote in the house, to set things right. Look at recent legislation, if you are in Congress and you haven’t voted against your party lately, then you have no ethics and no credibility with me.