Thoughts from the Frontline

Catastrophic Success

September 24, 2011

Choose your language

Breathes there a man with brain so dead
Who never to himself hath said,
“Social Security looks like a Ponzi Scheme?”

- With apologies to Sir Walter Scott

Today we look at Social Security. In the US, Texas Governor Perry touched the third rail of Social Security and called it a Ponzi scheme, which of course immediately made him the leading candidate in the “shoot the messenger” category. Behind the rhetoric, we look at some actual numbers. No, not the unfunded liabilities, that’s too easy. Let’s look at what a heartless, uncompassionate man President Roosevelt was when he started Social Security (and that’s what many will call me after reading this!). Behind the tongue in cheek, there are some very real issues that do not get addressed when we talk about Social Security, but that need to be part of the discussion. And of course, we must start off with the results of the FOMC meeting, which has me feeling not at all amused. What are they thinking? Apparently, they are seeing the results from another, alternative universe. There is a lot to cover as I head off to London, where I will finish this letter.

But first a very important announcement. I am very excited to be able to introduce my readers to a new mutual fund offered by my friends Altegris Investments. This fund is a blend of five commodity trading advisors or CTAs. Normally, to access a CTA you be to be an accredited investor, with all the net-worth requirements and limited liquidity. But Altegris has figured out how to wrap a mutual fund around CTAs and create a fund of commodity traders with all the usual aspects of a mutual fund (daily pricing, liquidity, etc.).

I have long been involved in the commodity-trading advisor space (some 20 years) and am a proponent of CTAs as a way to diversify portfolio risk. I have written a detailed report on this fascinating sector in relation to the fund, and it is available for free at http://www.altegrismutualfunds.com/landing/mauldinreports1.aspx, along with more information on the fund (including the offering memorandum and important risk disclosures, which are also included at the end of this letter).

The fund has been very well received since its launch and has grown rapidly to over $1 billion. There has been very active interest in the professional community, as advisors and brokers are looking for simple and realistic ways to diversify their clients’ portfolio risk, as well as a way that is truly noncorrelated to typical stock funds and many other asset classes. Whether you are a professional or individual, you really should take the time to research what I think is a very solid fund. My partners at Altegris have decades of experience in the CTA space, with the largest database of CTAs and long-term relationships with many of the managers (I actually started my investment career in the commodity fund space, so have more than a passing knowledge of the arena). Given the potential for volatility in the global markets, I think it makes sense to have some exposure to funds that can go both long and short (depending on their models). I urge you to read my report.

http://www.altegrismutualfunds.com/landing/mauldinreports1.aspx

400 Billion Yellow Aspirins

My mother used to tell me, “John, if you can’t say something nice, then don’t say anything at all.” So let’s see if I can find something to nice to say about the FOMC announcement. How about: “At least they didn’t cause TOO much damage”? As Rich Yamarone tweeted immediately after, they announced they would buy 400 billion white aspirins and sell 400 billion yellow aspirins. This was not…

Discuss This

20 comments

We welcome your comments. Please comply with our Community Rules.

Comments

Page 2 of 2  < 1 2

Charley Sweet

Sep. 26, 2011, 1:59 p.m.

Rob Arnott sends this along:

Thought experiment.  Suppose Johnâ??s new world, with life expectancy of 150, arrives tomorrow.  Does it make sense to have people retire at 65, so that they can clear the way for others to get jobs and promotions?  Unless we want people working 40 years to support people retired for twice as long, we need to recognize that living longer (and healthier) means working longer.

Since SS was launched, life expectancy has risen from 61 to 78.  So, weâ??ve moved almost 20% of the way to 150 already.  When SS was launched, it paid a bare subsistence income, starting 4 years after the average person was dead.  So, today, should it max at the poverty line for two, at $15k/year, and start at age 82?  That would be the equivalent program today.  Should SS be a retirement plan for all, allowing a 20-year retirement after a 40-year career.  No, the old rule was that you plan ahead with (1) savings, (2) a company pension (or, today, a 401(k)) and (3) SS.

The issue you raise is one of intergenerational equity.  Should ambitious young turks be deprived of advancement opportunity because some aging deadwood wonâ??t leave?  No.  Should the aged who have talent, wisdom and experience, be ousted to make way for the young turks?  No.  Would the young turks want those advancement opportunities now, if the choice was between paying tax rates that reflect the fully-loaded cost of Medicare and Medicaid (letâ??s say a top rate of 50%, up from 35%) versus advancing a bit slower than they might otherwise?  Who knows.

The deadwood issue is simple.  People reach their â??sell byâ? date at different ages.  If people age past the point where they deserve their pay, it should be possible to move them out to make way for those who can do the job.  Heartless?  Less so that â??Peter Principleâ? sinecures for aging deadwood, crippling the career opportunities of those better suited for the jobs.  People would save for their future, if they knew that this was a risk.  But, even though many folks should be demoted when they get past a certain age, that doesnâ??t mean that an arbitrary age should define when people tend to retire.

Australia has mandatory DC plans for all.  A percentage of your income goes into it.  Their version of SS is bleak, so they force people to save.  Interesting alternative.

Robert D. Arnott

Michael Green 25963

Sep. 26, 2011, 3:16 a.m.

John, A small number of commentators, yourself included, called the housing bubble correctly, and pointed out the absurdity of believing that house prices would ever and always continue to rise.  But the same commentators step outside their field and are convinced that life expectancy will ever and always increase.  But will it?  For instance: a) Each year the likeliest outcome is an increase in life expectancy which can only be small, but if there were a fall in life expectancy it could be any size.  You have a perfect Taleb Black Swan distribution.  b) We are well overdue an influenza pandemic, and will the successor to HIV prove as tractable?  Infectious disease has not been eliminated any more than terrorism.  c) Two years ago, my brother and I visited our grandfather’s grave near Ypres.  But politicians seem determined to forget every lesson of the last hundred years.  And there are enough crazies out there and enough means of inflicting real harm that sooner or later they will come together d) When you and I were born there were 3 billion people in the world.  Today there are 7 billion.  How many will there be when our grandchildren are our age?  When will resources give out?  How long can they sustain increased life expectancy?
  Perhaps nobody can call the top of the market.  But that doesn’t mean there won’t be a top.

John Uphoff

Sep. 25, 2011, 8:52 p.m.

The life expectancy table estimates for a given year are for individuals born in that year. For example, a male born in 1950 is estimated to live to 65. If you made it to 65, another table gives you an extra 16 years. That put you at about 81. Therefore, if you start getting SS at age 65, you can estimate that you will only receive 16 years of benefits. Mauldin states that today, life expectancy is 79. However, that is only is you were born today.

Rob R

Sep. 25, 2011, 2:04 p.m.

John you’re a great writer and too smart not to look into the revolution in economic thinking called MMT.  Those who believe Social Security can run out of money are viewing the world thru gold standard glasses.  But we went off the gold standard in 1971.  As a result the US Gov can print any quantity of money at any time.  That doesn’t make it a good idea to print anything at anytime, or to wastefully spend, but that doesn’t change the fact that we can just print money out of thin air.  Right this very instant Congress could pass the “now it is funded unfunded liability act” and put trillions and trillions of dollars into that fund for Social Security, Medicaide and any other “going to run out of money” programs to tap into when needed.  Of course that would be silly because the US can print that money when it is actually needed.  You’ll note that no one ever says we’re going to run out of money to fund the military - so how can we run out of money for Social Security?  Answer: we can’t if we choose not to.

Bad idea you say?  Worried about debasing the currency or creating a hyper-inflation?  An understanding of MMT will help you know how to deal with the possibility of printing too much money.  For one, it’s pretty hard to do that right now because there are trillions of dollars being zapped from our economy via deleveraging and defaults.  But should we print too much it is a simple matter of taxing it out of the system.  China is printing like crazy now - they are creating a bubble and are reminiscent of the japan of the 1980’s.  They are printing too much - we aren’t anywhere near that level.  And it’s a slow moving barge - they’ve been printing massive amounts of money for several years and yet they don’t have hyperinflation.  They still have time to tax it out.  Of course they won’t because they don’t understand MMT which says that bubbles and busts are far more likely than hyperinfaltion.  Which is what happened in 2000, and now, to us and 1989 to the Japanese.  2 decades later the last thing Japan had to worry about was hyperinflation.

But I digress.  If you think the revolution in medicine is amazing - wait until you really understand fiat money in a floating exchange rate system.  Because right now you and all of your economist friends have been taught text book gold standard economics and we are not on the gold standard.

Franz Meier

Sep. 25, 2011, 10:38 a.m.

John Mauldins Newsletter is always a good read also in Switzerland. However, raising the retirement age to close to or above the expected end age will not help the jobless situation. Already now, work seems to get a scarce good. If now all of the above 65 continue to work (as I do, to improve my retirement money and keep myself fit) there will be less work available for the 35 to 55 age band, and I understood that in the US already now one out of 4 in this age bracket is out of work. It seems that nobody takes this in account in the worldwide discussion about moving retirement age limits higher. The question may be allowed: who is going to hire a 65+ person, if on the job market you are out if 50+ unless you are self employed.
fm Switzerland

Ernest M Kraus

Sep. 25, 2011, 7:36 a.m.

John;
As a retired sales representative for a multi-national pharmaceuticl company, I continue to watch developments in the health care field. Among many assignments over the years was having the major teaching hospitals of medical schools as part of my responsibility. Some of the physicians I met would share information with me regarding medical school applicants. Through the 80’s, there were 21 or 22 applicants per medical school seat. Highly qualified students that were rejected went to medical school outside the country, graduated, returned to the U.S., became highly successful and joined the faculties of those schools that had rejected them. Today, based on data from medical school admissions, there is 2.1 or 2.2 applicants per seat. The best and the brightest are not going into medicine. Government and insurance company intervention are strangling the medical profession. Itis the rare physician I knew that would have encouraged their children into a medical career. My son, a highly successful head and neck surgeon has ecouraged his children elsewhere. I would wonder how many students are not going into biomedical engineering for the same reason.

Hopefully I will be proven wrong, those discoveries will keep coming and I’ll keep on living to collect my social security.

Ernest M. Kraus, R.Ph.

Edward Baxter

Sep. 25, 2011, 6:50 a.m.

Mauldin’s analysis of life expectancy is fundamentally flawed.  Life expectancy at birth has greatly increased since the 1930s (due largely to decreased infant and youth mortality), life expectancy for those reaching retirement age, not so much.  In 1930, life expectancy for a white male who was 60 years old was for 14.72 years more: in other words, he could expect to the age of almost 75. By 2004, life expectancy for white males at age 60 had increased to 20.9, about six years more. (see table at http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html).  Thus one retiring at age 65 in 1940 could expect to collect social security about 10 years on average, by 2004, it would have been up to about 16 years.  To argue that “FDR set the retirement age four years above the average life expectancy” is simply wrong, and shows a basic misunderstanding of the whole concept.  It’s not that complicated to understand. 

Mr Mauldin, will you publish a correction?

Max Headroom

Sep. 25, 2011, 12:23 a.m.

Using data fron the Census bureau and Social Secuity i found that 5% of the population between ages 20 and 62, dies before age 62.  Between the ages 62 and 65 14% of the population dies.  There’s your ponzi scheme.  This also tells me that it is not all that healthy to live in the U.S.  So, when someone wants to raise the retirement age, are they telling me that they want 25% or 30% of our population to die before benefit can be granted.  As I see it the problem isn’t Social Security.  It is the low Old age Disability premium that is paid out of Social Security taxes.  It is not taking in enough to fund Medicare/Medicaid.

Craig Cheatum

Sep. 24, 2011, 10:47 p.m.

Besides possibly raising the cap on contributions and means testing, we may want to consider a more aggressive way to grow the funds.  One way would be to gradually use new revenues to the fund to gradually purchase a broad worldwide stock index until the ratio of stocks to bonds at a conservative level is reached.  Then monthly rebalancing could be done with checks written from the best performing group and new deposits to the worst performing groupâ??thereby keeping the preferred investment ratio constant.  The benefit is for improved long-term returns and a way to remove the fund as a source of dependable and reliable source of funds for day-to-day government business.  The fund can be managed by the existing staff so no outside advice would be needed.  The most important aspect is the constant rebalancing of the total fund to spread risk around, rather than individual accounts that would be difficult to insure that the automatic rebalancing is done each month.  Another way to jumpstart this program would be to fund each newborn with a $10,000 deposit to their accountâ??enhancing the time value and developing a cultural emphasis on savings.

Craig Cheatum
Houston, Texas

Michael Beaudin

Sep. 24, 2011, 9:43 p.m.

The only reason that the Fed is starting Operation Twist is to keep rates down on federal government borrowing.  The deficit can not handle an increase in interest rates and no matter how much they talk about this being for mortgage rates it is all about the federal debt.

Page 2 of 2  < 1 2