Volatility

In the week of August 8th to the 12th, the world saw the equity markets swing very wildly from up to down and around again. It was, I am sure, very disconcerting, probably frightening. And people are confused because after a lot of reforms, laws, regulations, planning, stimulation, and quantitative easing, which was suppose to make things better, we are having big, dangerous, damaging swings.

In recent days I have seen several suggestions in the media that volatility would continue, at least for a while, because of the uncertainty as to what direction the stock market would take. These comments have a very narrow focus and fail to recognize wider causes and implications. They do not recognize that it is not just the stock market that has volatility. Currently, well, in fact I am not aware of any international market that isn’t suffering higher levels of volatility. Currency markets, commodity markets, bond markets (except very short term, which are basically pegged by Fed policy), you name it, are all experiencing significant volatility.

The biggest reason is “uncertainty”. What is meant by uncertainty is much more than an understanding that the future is not known. The future is unknowable, but, in many circumstances, it is predictable and can be expected to behave in a comprehensible manner when unexpected changes do occur. If you are a competent investor or businessman, you have confidence in your ability to respond to change. No, this uncertainty goes way beyond the basic unknowable future.

Nor is it just that the international community faces problems. There are always problems, issues that need to be addressed and dealt with. Again, competence leads to confidence.

What is causing the foundation of today’s uncertainty is the lack, one could say the nonexistence, of ideas, solutions, intelligence, willingness, leadership of governments around the world. It is as if there was a contagious disease that has afflicted every ranking member of most of the major governments of the world. They fight, they seek their own political advantage, they evade, they do nearly anything except face the reality of the problems facing them. For months we have been waiting for the leaders of the governments of the eurozone to solve the sovereign debt problem facing several of their members. Several times they have announced triumphantly that they had solved the problem only to see that the market regarded those steps as insufficient. Now a few countries are in extreme recessions. As their economies shrink, their bond problems become worse. No one in Europe (or in most countries) seems to understand how an economy grows, with or without heavy debt. The stimulus steps are not working (as they aren’t in the US, as we shall see shortly). Data released this last week showed that the German economy was not growing as fast as thought. Germany is generally regarded as the backbone, best source, the money source of last resort of the euro system. If it isn’t strong, the eurozone will have much more difficulty in solving the problem of sovereign debt, let alone actually experiencing growth.

It also appears that the US has not grown much at all in the first half of 2011. Nearly everyone was expecting that because of QE2 the economy would be on its way to a normal recovery with growth powering along toward 6%. Now many people are talking about a recession this year. The government policy has failed. People don’t know what to make of that. They are confused, and uncertain.

It is being recognized, slowly, that the Fed has run out of options. In the last couple weeks in announced that it would not raise interest rates above effectively zero for at least two years. Obviously, the charge of uncertainty was heard. But this is recognized as a dumb move. The stock market tried to rally, went up wildly, and then continued downward, just as wildly. There are some at the Fed who understand some of the problems facing banks and businesses in America. For example, read this speech (not saying it is perfect, but he recognizes some important points.)

In addition, and as important, in most of the developed world, laws passed over the last few years have unleashed massive new regulations and restrictions on banks and businesses. Most of these new regulations have yet to be formulated and announced. Bankers and businessmen have little idea as to what to expect, except that it will not be supportive of normal, intelligent, profitable banking and business practices. Everyone is waiting for the shoe to drop – on their heads.

So we have uncertainty hounding us from two angles, the failure of the government policies that were suppose to save us and the impact of new, arbitrary regulatons.

With the Fed’s hands tied from all but the most crazy ideas (The Fed is run by helicopter Ben, after all.) and the Administration and Congress tied up over the astonishingly large deficit already on the books, one wonders what the government could think that it could do if we go into another recession. Will they try to enforce wage and price controls? Will they try to force a command economy? Will they watch in wonder?

Let’s say that they find that they can do nothing. Let’s say that Geither in the Treasury doesn’t go off into nether-nether land as he did in 2007-9 and write lots of checks he can’t pay. Let’s say the economy is on its own (I expect that even the Republicans will try to do something.). Is the economy strong enough and free enough to recover? If it doesn’t, will that give the anti-capitalism crowd more leverage? Is our time to fight shorter than any of us figured?

Many are thinking that foreign currencies and businesses are safe havens from the problems in the US. Actually, these safe havens are more in Asia or the BRICs. But, this is the era of globalism, of international markets and money movement. When the US and Europe are in recession Asia and the BRICs do not have markets to sell to and their economies also decline. Some of the stronger currencies may still be relatively stronger (Japan is a disaster waiting to happen.), but you need to be very careful. If and when recession comes to China, for example, and the real estate market crumbles, it will be interesting to see what the Communist government does, that is unless you live there, they it could be frightening. Remember too, that the government leaders and central bankers all went to the same schools, read the same books, heard the same speakers, and hold the same ideas as those in Washington. There is no country that is a financial and intellectual island. Differences are relative, in degrees, not fundamentals.

So the volatility we see is the result of the confusion and dismay. People see the failure of the promises of the political, economic, and intellectual leaders and do not know what to think. Even the more experienced traders are suffering whiplash by news and promises. People rush from hope to fear, back and forth. They have no foundation for understanding what is happening. The mainstream media is just as ignorant.

The hole that Keynesian policies have dug for us is very deep. The process of fighting over who will be heard and who will lead will cause constant turmoil. The inept attempts at solutions will add to the problems. Lost time in actually solving the problems will result in the problem becoming larger and exerting more strain on the international economy. Volatility will continue, sometimes becoming wilder, sometimes hitting a lull, but as the confusion and fear will not be reduced and the problems will reemerge, the volatility will return, probably in greater, wilder swings.

There will competitors offering answers and solutions. The Christian right, fascists of Christ, will offer answers. There could be an even more extreme, pro-government Democrat emerge who would rival BO in his willingness to use force to achieve the ends of destruction promised by altruism. Competition for the minds of Americans could become fierce.

People are looking for answers. This is an opportunity. Objectivism and capitalism have answers, good ones, ones based on reality. The books and ideas of Ayn Rand need to be spread further. People might be willing to listen.

Truth must be heard.

Self-Fulfilling Fantasies: US Treasury Bonds

Number one on my list of fantasies is the US Treasury Bond. (Just for the record, in this context I mean nightmares. I do have good fantasies!) People feel US Treasury Bonds are safe. Are they?

The usual reason given for the safety of US Treasurys is that they are backed by the ability of the US government to dip into the pocket of the most-wealthy nation on earth to meet interest payments and redeem the bond upon maturity. Well, yes, that is true, still true. But that proposition does have limits, limits that have not been stated or acknowledged before, but need to be seriously considered, soon. (Notice that the wakeup call of the S&P downgrade of US Treasury Bonds has not resulted in honest reconsideration of the path of the Obama administration, but has caused several loud calls for destroying the remaining limited independence of the credit rating companies.)

There is also another issue that isn’t addressed in the basic reasons for the safety of the US Treasury Bond, prices. You see (and I am sure that many of you do see) the price of the bond is related to the interest rate that it pays, which in turn is related to the interest rates paid on other bonds around the world. If interest rates begin to climb, and the secondary market for Treasury Bonds (where bonds purchased from the Treasury are resold), even the Treasury itself, need to compete for funds, the interest rates for the bonds will climb. The consequence will be that the price of the bonds will fall. So Treasury Bond prices do change. If interest rates move, say, a whole percentage point upward what happens to the price? The current benchmark 10 year Treasury Bond has a yield (interest rate) of about 2.4% (the date of my first draft being somewhat different from my publishing date). So I am suggesting that it went from 2.4% over time, however long you want, to 3.4%. The latter interest rate is still very low. Historically, this bond has been much closer to 5%. Even at 3.4%, with taxes at roughly 25% and inflation around 2%, the bond isn’t making you any money (at 2.4% you are taking a loss). (Of course, foreign governments aren’t paying taxes!) But, a bond purchased originally at 2.4% will not yield the new market rate and can’t be sold for the original purchase price (nominally $10,000). Instead it must be sold for the amount that will bring the current market rate of 3.4%. (or $240 – the actual dollars paid in interest – divided by the new interest rate) which is close to $7058 ( there are issues of time to maturity, when you receive back your $10,000 that will adjust the actual sell price). You have lost roughly 29% of your principal. You see, relatively small moves in interest rates will have significant effects on the market value of your bond.

This example demonstrates that bonds are no safer in terms of maintaining your principal than any other asset, unless you hold to maturity. How safe is that? Depends upon the inflation rate doesn’t it. When thinking of long-term monetary values, don’t think in terms of currency, that is, fiat currency. Think in terms of some real, basic thing that you use in daily life, like a loaf of bread, or a pound of ground beef, or a latte in Paris, whatever. You will connect the rate of inflation to your currency denominated assets and be able to better realize what is happening to your capital. The bottom line is that US Treasury Bonds are very risky. (I won’t even go into the fact that you have put your savings into the hands of people like Obama, Bernanke, and Geithner.)

Many, if not most investors know these facts, so why are they still running to US Treasuries? Context. Or, a perhaps better way of putting it, where else are they going to put their money? There are a couple currencies that are considered strong, i.e., the Yen and the Swiss Franc. Both of these have been bid up sky high (much to the dismay and panic of the authorities and business people in those countries). There isn’t any real room there for more money. Other currencies are not considered safe by the populations of those countries. The best current example of that is the eurozone. This group of “developed countries” have people making decisions who are more concerned about voters than solvency. People who wish to protect the value of their liquid assets are scared of what these politicians will do (not to mention the so-called economists who do not think stability or production as important to economic health). The person holding liquid assets wants to put his property somewhere that the whims of the politicians can’t destroy it.

The bond markets for stronger countries, such as German and Austrailia, are small, very small in comparison to that of the US, and can realistically take only a small portion of the available funds. So for anyone wanting to get out of their home market, out of their currency, out away from their authorities, the US is still a better place. It just gives you a good idea of how bad it is elsewhere that the US dollar and the US Treasury Bond are about as good as it gets.

The result is that Obama, Bernanke, and Geithner feel pretty strong and confident, in spite of the downgrade of US government bonds by S&P. Again, isn’t it amazing that the politicians in other countries scare their populations more than the US trio of idiots.

The above discussion also gives you some idea of what could be the future for the cost of gold in fiat currencies. The gold market is smaller than the market for the Yen or even the Swiss Franc.

At this point I should explain how the bid/asked market functions: it is the margin that moves a market, especially a auction market like stocks, bonds, currencies, commodities. It is not the total demand or ownership. It is the most recent orders, their size, their volume, and which side of the transaction they are on, buy or sell, that moves the market. The traders do what they can to meet the reqirements of the open orders, moving the price as required to elicit corresponding orders (a buy order to match the existing sell order) to clear the market. Higher volumes of demand for a item, like gold, will send the price up. The higher the volume, the faster and larger the price movement.

So if people really begin to consider gold as safe and a real alternative to fiat currencies, the current price will be considered very low. Any kind of movement into gold from these other markets will send the gold price to astounding heights and will really scare a lot of people.

What will be interesting to watch (but not to live through) will be the point at which people begin to doubt that US government assets are a good idea, including the dollar. We don’t even have to worry about China or Japan for things to get ugly. If just foreign banks, businesses, and individuals begin to sour on our debt, its yield will move strongly upward and its market price downward. The budget deal and all of the carefully crafted, make-believe scenarios will be revealed as so much fantasy. These scenarios (models) are also among my favorite nightmare fantasies.

The End of QE2

QE2, i.e., quantitative easing two, the program by the Federal Reserve Board of buying longer-term government bonds to “support the economy” ($600B this time) is slated to come to an end June 30, 2011, today. One might ask what this round of low interest rates and easy money has done? I am sure that the governmental types will proclaim to the land that they have averted major disasters and saved civilization by their actions. Sure. Others will say that the results are a significant additional amount of inflation. Perhaps. One can definitely say that the level of reserves that the banks who are members of the Federal Reserve System (nearly all banks) have risen to new, even scarier heights. Before September 2008, the total reserves of these member banks were in the $50B range. Soon after that fateful September, the reserves rose to over $1T! Now the reserves are about $1.6T. What is good is that the “money” (which the Fed merely created out of the air) is sitting in the reserves and not roaming around the economy. Other than inflating the reserve figure, I don’t see anything beneficial that the QE2 creation of an additional $600B has done. The economy is not doing well. And much of the damage of the run up to the 2008 meltdown has not been undone, either.

Maybe what has happened is that the economy has floated along on the Fed cushion for the first half of this year. It is growing slightly, say less than 2%. At this point in most “recoveries” the economy has achieved much higher growth. The current economy has not gotten back to even, yet. Some prices have fallen, e.g., real estate. Residential real estate prices have probably not fallen enough and the sector is still in poor health, with foreclosures still happening at a high level. Employment as a percentage of the working population is still low. It is even lower when the actual productivity of the many of the new “jobs” is taken into account (i.e. government “jobs” that produce nothing). Moreover, for various reasons, some having to do with money creation around the world and some having to do with enforced shortages in the face of growing demand, the prices of some basic commodities are high, meaning a lower standard of living for all.

So QE2 comes to an end. Many suggest that the economy, left to its own resources does not have the strength to continue to grow, or, if at all, at a very low level. Employment, which is only doing better because of some statistical manipulation by the Labor Department, will suffer. Our standard of living will continue to fall.

The counter trend to the government’s activities is that there are millions of people in our country running businesses and working to be more productive and profitable. In spite of all the government does, some very basic elements in our economy are growing. So much of what I see from Objectivists assumes that the government is all-powerful and ignores what the non-government sector is capable of doing. Remember, the practical attack on capitalism has been going on for over 100 years (as opposed to the philosophical attack that has been going on much longer). The attack is still only partly successful because the ingenuity of the American capitalist works around and through the laws, regulations, and direct interference put in place by our politicians. The failures, when they occur, can be big, e.g., the Gulf oil spill. But on the whole, American businesses have coped pretty will with the interference. There is a limit to how much they can overcome, and we may be getting close to that limit (re. Atlas Shrugged), but American capitalists and their workers are trying, still. Whatever QE2 and its aftermath, the real economy will influence the results. This is a major reason why the consequences of government actions are so hard to predict. It is also why people do not take the predictions of doom seriously. Long-term doom just doesn’t seem to happen (as opposed to short-term doom like the sub-prime/financial meltdown). Things don’t seem to change much on the surface. We seem to still have capitalism. To the extent that capitalism has been undermined, we are in for a rough time, unless change for the good happens. (We are experiencing long-term deterioration, but we are experiencing it like a lobster in a tub of heating water, and we aren’t noticing our losses.)

To the extent that QE2 has been propping up the economy, that support will disappear. To the extent that participants in the economy thought that QE2 was providing some real support for the economy, the loss of that support will make them weary and less confident. To the extent that QE2 has been fueling the rise in the stock market and commodity prices around the world, that fuel will disappear and perhaps those prices will drop. To the extent that QE2 has been keeping longer-term interest rates low, they will now begin to rise. To the extent that QE2 has been glossing over problems in the economy those problems will reassert themselves and they will have to be addressed by the markets in a more rational manner.

The end of QE2 will be a good thing if the government and the Fed do not start tinkering again. There is another program that the Fed has ongoing, that is not changing. It has a lot of bonds and mortgage-backed securities, say about $1T. Those securities are maturing and being paid off as time goes on. The Fed has been taking that money, and buying Treasuries, about $250B a year (according to news reports). This isn’t really a good thing, since the original funds to purchase these “toxic” securities was made-up money. It would be better if the money was retired, and the member bank reserves reduced (that is actually where the money went in the first place). But at least it isn’t new made-up money.

There is a lot of talk about the reappearance of Fed “support”, say QE3 at some point within the next year if the economy begins to founder. Right now the pressure in the much of the world is for interest rates to rise. For instance, the Bank of International Settlements issued a statement that criticized developed countries for keeping interest rates so low. Other countries have raised their rates recently. Raising rates now is inconsistent with any of the Fed’s QE’s. To engage in another round of quantitative easing the Fed may have to fight a worldwide trend. Such a trend of rising interest rates would put further pressure on U.S. Treasuries since money would tend to seek higher rates of return, and Treasuries would have to have higher rates to compete for funds. This is especially true with the recent public statements from S&P and the IMF regarding the Treasuries deteriorating soundness. The U.S. government may be ignoring the negative evaluations of U.S. government debt, but the rest of the world isn’t. (On the other hand, with the problems in the Eurozone, Treasuries are viewed as very safe by comparison and there could be no significant upward interest rate pressure on them. When things are going bad, it isn’t going to be very clear what will suffer and what won’t. That kind of uncertainty is the nature of government-induced instability.)

Once interest rates begin to rise, we shall see how badly the Fed is prepared for the real world. It is suggested that to avoid significant consumer price rises the Fed will have to aggressively soak up all the liquidity that they have put into the system since 2008. That is so even if that liquidity resides only in “member’s reserves”. “Sopping up the liquidity” means doing just the exact opposite from what the Fed has been doing the last three years. It means doing just the opposite from what Ben Bernanke has built his professional life around and what he has been hailed a hero for doing. Does anyone think that the Fed is really ready to reverse course in any significant way? If there is any reason to give credence to the hyperinflationists it is the prospect of interest rates rising and the Fed allowing the policies of the last few years to run their course. It is definitely the reality that if the Fed keeps things as it is now we could see hyperinflation. Our immediate future may depend upon how the Fed reacts to rising interest rates. To that extent our future rests in the hands of a few deluded, self-proclaimed geniuses.

I am not going to forecast what will happen over the next couple years. (I have been expecting interest rates to rise for over ten years.) We just need to keep a very careful eye on events here and abroad, especially in Greece and the Eurozone. We could also see problems in China.

Let me tie my most recent Inflation Update to the end of QE2. In the inflation update I am talking about the money supply and its effect on prices. The end of QE2 will reduce the upward pressure on the money supply some. Keep in mind that QE2 was aimed at longer-term Treasuries, thinking that lower longer-term rates would spur major borrowing. The Fed is still aiming to keep short-term interest rates low, and will continue buying Treasuries where necessary to keep those interest rates in the target area of zero to 0.25%. This upward pressure on the money supply will continue.

Let us suppose that QE2 did act as Bernanke anticipated. Businesses were attracted by the lower interest rates and did invest. Then, with the end of QE2 and interest rates increase because there is less money available to loan, then we should see less borrowing, less investing, less hiring, lower growth, and perhaps less money for the equity market. And still there will be pressure on the money supply, high commodity prices, and probable upward pressure on consumer prices (from various sources).

So, the bottom line is that the next few months offer even greater uncertainty than we have been living with since the residential real estate mortgage crisis began. I think that the only thing we can be certain of is that our governmental leaders, who have nearly unlimited sway over the money taps and financial/legal gimmicks that they can produce, are going to generally make wrong decisions.

I have final note about interest rates. I have seen reports that foreign central banks, big buyers of Treasuries in the past were absent in the last Treasury auction (and the Fed stepped in and made up the difference – indirectly). As the Fed will stop buying at the end of June, if the foreign central banks do not return, the Treasury is going to have to raise rates to attract buyers, from somewhere. I don’t want to suppose at all what levels the rates are going to have to be to sell the bonds that they need to. Actually, hitting the debt limit may be helpful to the Fed’s program because the Treasury will be limited in the quantity of bonds it can offer for the next few months. The interest rate tale will begin after the debt ceiling is lifted.

It is difficult to see what the foreign central banks are doing. There just aren’t many places for them to put the excess cash they are accumulating. Probably Japan is expecting to spend a lot on its reconstruction (meaning that their money supply will expand and the Yen vs. other currencies will get stronger as the central bank buys yen). But there really isn’t another source of even decent, high grade (which is a relative term), large volume bonds besides the US government. China has told the EU that it will continue to “support” them in the face of their expanding credit crisis. I haven’t seen an exact definition of “support”. It may mean that they won’t sell out of European bonds. It may mean that the Chinese will continue buying as they had before. I doubt that it means China will increase their buying. Europe is certainly not a candidate to replace the US as a place to park hundreds of billions of dollars a year. Remember that China has a large trade surplus with the Eurozone that rivals its dollar surplus and it is already buying lots of bonds from Europe. Is China just keeping cash? We shall see.

As was pointed out in an analysis I read (an email), the funds that the Treasury can attract to replace the foreign central bank buyers would be from the US private sector, who would want higher yields. But, if the money goes to the Treasury, it won’t go into equities or other investments, and thus, for sure, the stock market’s fun days will turn into sad ones. Also, the prospects for job creation, productive jobs, will diminish further (if that is possible). Unkle Ben is expecting a rebound in the last part of the year. HA!

So what would Bernanke do then, when interest rates start going up and the true lack of recovery is obvious? What does he advocate for every instance? What has he done? Make-up more money! Watch for QE17!!

Treasury Grab of Retirment Assets: So Far

As far as I can find, there has been no public comment or action from the government regarding this issue since the hearings last September. The IRS, in its December annual statement about planned new regulations, etc., included annuities and pension plans in its list, without any indication as to what it has in mind.

The news reports about the combined Treasury and Labor Departments’ hearings last September do not mention any discussion regarding the fears that I and others have voiced. Our fears is that the Federal government will soon try to take some action that will force Americans to place our retirement savings in U.S. Treasury Bonds. The government need not take our savings, just control where we put it. Putting our savings into Treasuries will reduce our potential retirement income flow, remove more money from the productive economy, and further destroy our freedom of action. If, as I expect, interest rates on Treasuries begins to climb, the size of our investment portfolios will shrink.

There were two sets of themes in the testimony during the hearings. Those who are self-styled experts on retirement focused on what they perceive as the failure of American’s to properly prepare for retirement. They are concerned that people will not make good choices about their savings after retirement and that retirees will run out of money. They regard a guaranteed lifetime income option as vital. I doubt that these people were confronted with the question of forcing the poor, misguided Americans to place their savings in lifetime income vehicles. That is really the question. Somehow, the thinking seems to be, just having the option will be the solution. Later, the experts will discover that the option isn’t being used, at least sufficiently, and the experts will cry that further measures need to be taken to take care of us.

The other theme was the concern of industry representatives, almost entirely members of the insurance industry. Beginning in the mid-90s, critics of the insurance industry, including many regulators, have attacked the industry for putting annuities within pension plans and IRAs. In the critics’ view, pension plans and IRA’s provide tax deferral, which annuities also provide. The criticism was that there were cheaper investment vehicles than annuities to put into a 401(k) or Simple Plan. Critics, such as Susie Orman and the industry regulators, claimed that the only reason annuities were sold were much higher commissions and profits. These complaints ignored the actual commission rates of the majority of mainstream insurance companies (as well as other issues). These critics also tended to ignore features of annuities that weren’t provided by other investment vehicles, such as the lifetime-income feature and the insurance element.

The comments of the insurance representatives at the Treasury and Labor Departments’ hearings was that these criticisms had to be addressed. Their companies would not participate if they were exposing themselves to legal harassment, even if the harassment was ultimately baseless. I expect that the criticisms of annuities by regulators is the primary reason why annuities aren’t available in 401(k) plans now. It is also possible that the government will use the intent of private insurance companies to profit from their business as a justification for creating a government annuity, thus fulfilling the fear that all of this is just a ploy to force retirement plan money into funding the U.S. government.

I saw no mention of any consideration of what kind of annuity that should be offered, e.g., fixed (like a bank CD) or variable (which allows investments in stocks and bonds with in the annuity). If the intent is to put more money into Treasury Bonds, variable annuities would not be allowed. Nor did I see any mention of the interest rates that would be paid on a fixed annuity. With the Federal Reserve Board forcing interest rates to be very low for long periods of time, the income available to an annuity holder would be very small. For someone who lived a long time, an income resulting from a low interest rate would suffer financially, especially if there were any level of inflation, even 1%. Fixed annuities only make sense in a gold standard, where even a low rate of interest would provide a growing standard of living.

We are now left waiting for Treasury and the Labor Departments to take the next step, if any. It may be that the next step would be to propose a law for Congress to consider. It is another shoe that we are waiting to hear from.

Background notes: Annuities, Retirement Plans, and the Government

After seeing comments by Burgess Laughlin on my earlier post about the Treasury request for comments on “life-time payments”, I realized that there were some underlying history and understandings that I had not included. This background is not general knowledge and it would be helpful, I think, for this information to be available. This is not a research paper. I am not including references and quotes from “authorities”. I am giving you my understanding of the situation, which provides some of the foundation as to why I came to the conclusions I did in the earlier post.



Annuities are one of the oldest financial products. Originally, an annuity was purchased when a person was ready to receive an income stream. It is purchased from an insurance company because the insurance company has the expertise in computing life expectancy and using long-term, incoming producing assets. When purchased, the life expectancy of the person to receive the income was computed, the current interest rate considered, and the income stream is determined. The income stream continues for the entire lifetime of the annuity owner. Some owners die early, some late. If the insurance company has made good life expectancy computations over sufficient number of owners, it will be able to meet all lifetime payments and make money.


Two things have changed over the years. One, annuities became tax shelters. You can purchase what is called an annuity without beginning the income stream, or as it is called today, annuitizing it. The interest rate may be fixed at purchase, or the interest rate may be adjusted before annuitizing as the market changes. The interest rate is not adjusted after the income stream is begun. When you purchase the annuity and don’t begin the income stream, it accrues interest, that is the principle grows, deferring income taxes until the income stream begins. Actually, there is no requirement that you begin the income stream. You may withdraw cash as you wish from the annuity until it is all withdrawn, and will have some taxes to pay. Under current law, if you withdraw money prior to 59½ there will be an additional 10% tax penalty. If you annuitize it, you will also pay taxes on the growth.


The other development is the creation of “variable” annuities. After hearing severe criticism that interest-bearing vehicles provided poor returns, the insurance industry created annuity vehicles with “sub-accounts” that were similar to stock and bond mutual funds. The poor returns of fixed annuities are actually worse than most critics argued. After internal costs, i.e., the insurance company’s costs and profit margin, taxes, and inflation, the return on an fixed annuity tends to be negative. Variable annuities are almost identical to what were now called fixed annuities in tax treatment and structure, but their return was based upon the results of the stock and bond sub-accounts that the owner selected. Of course, as opposed to an interest bearing account, returns based upon stock or bond markets might show declines in the principle. Some insurance then added optional benefits to variable annuities to try to overcome some elements of the potential negative return, adding costs and complexity.


After the tech stock crash ten years ago, another type of annuity gained popularity called the indexed annuity. Its return was tied to a stock market index, but did not actually contain stocks. The returns were lower than the market to allow the annuity company to engage in hedged trading to counteract equity market declines. An owner could have higher return than a fixed annuity but not have the fear of the declines in the stock market.


Annuity products came under attack from several quarters. It was claimed that annuities themselves had higher internal costs than they needed, and thus the insurance companies were making too much money at the publics expense. Since these products were offered to the public through normal sales channels that insurance companies used, it was claimed that salesmen were taking advantage of the public to earn huge commissions, especially when the owner was elderly. Finally, it was argued by the Federal Regulatory authorities as well as others that placing an annuity within a retirement plan or IRA was often a bad idea because the retirement plan already deferred taxes, so a major reason for purchasing an annuity before retirement was not applicable and were sold within retirement accounts only to earn the insurance companies excessive profits and salesmen huge commissions. (Regarding some of these accusations, it is true that that some of the products offered on the market had excessive expenses and commissions.)


Thus, for the federal government to now suggest that annuities are important and to suggest that they should be a required option in a retirement plan is a complete change.


What is interesting is not just that there seems to be a change in attitude, but where this change is taking place.


There is no part of the federal government that concerns itself directly with the retirement income of individuals. Even with Social Security, the administration only follows the law. It is the Congress that has had some concern over the years, putting in place various tax-advantaged options as incentive to retirement savings.


You might say that the Treasury has some connection with pensions because its responsibility for pensions paid to retired government employees. Actually, there is no comparison. The only similarity to a federal government pension and that paid by any other organization, including, I believe, state and local governments, is that the recipients are retired. The federal pension is financed in the same manner as Social Security, that is, it is paid from current revenue. In addition, federal pensions are indexed to inflation. Pensions paid by others are funded at retirement and placed in annuities, which is a lifetime stream of income at a fixed rate of interest. The Treasury doesn’t have to concern itself with the funding, just the cash flow.


Three government agencies have interests in tax-deferred retirement plans: the Labor Dept., the IRS, and the SEC/FIMRA (was NASD). The interest of the Labor Dept. is to ensure that lower level employees are treated the same as the managers (e.g., upper management is penalized if the lower level employees don’t contribute sufficiently to defined contribution plans). The IRS is responsible to make sure that regulations are complied with to maintain the tax-deferred status of the plan. The SEC and its little “independent” regulators oversee the compliance with security regulations if securities are offered within the plan. The system has no governmental body that is concerned with the success of a plan or the decisions of the employee during their work years or retirement.


Now the Treasury is leading such an effort. Not the Labor Dept., although it seems to be tagging along with the Treasury. But why is the Treasury involved at all?


There can be only one connection. One of the primary investments for fixed annuities for the insurance company is “safe” government bonds. Insurance companies don’t use only government bonds, but it is certainly a major component. If a significant number of people began buying fixed annuities, the market for government bonds would expand.


If you look at the questions for which the Treasury wants answers you will see a concern about the costs of annuities. My expectation is that they will find that using private insurance company fixed annuities would be too expensive. This conclusion fits with the anti-business philosophy you find in many different parts of the economy, the financial sector, and the current administration. They want to cut out the middlemen, including the salesman and the profit seeking business. As with the justification for removing funding of college tuition, they would see supplying government created annuities as a cost savings to the retiree. They would also be able to fund the annuity entirely with government bonds.


So, as a result of their “studies and analysis” they would ask the Congress to allow the creation of government annuities and require all employers above a certain size who have 401(k) retirement plans to offer the annuities for “investment” or for an income stream at retirement. Then, brick wall. You see, offering them and not selling them will not have the results the Treasury is expecting. Few people will buy annuities, even with the government backing. Certainly any advisor, money oriented writer, or publication will point out the complete lack of benefits for the buyer.


No. If the Treasury wants to see bonds sold to retirees in the form of annuities, they will have to require the bonds to be “bought”. It isn’t going to happen any other way.


That is why I say that the Treasury is going to grab retirement accounts. That is why I am concerned. That is why I wrote the post I did.


This process may take a couple years. It might not come to pass. There are certainly many obstacles that stand in the way.


But if they could sell ObamaCare, they can sell this. If they can legally require people to buy health insurance, requiring them to buy annuities to keep them from needing welfare in later years will not be a big jump. All the government wants to do is to “assure” retirees that they will have an income for the rest of their lives. It is the same type of justification that Obama has used for other intrusions into our lives. It is in line with the justification for Social Security. If it can be done, I am sure that Obama and his Gang can figure out all the buttons to push to get what they want.

Treasury Grab of Retirement Assets, Personal Consequences

I have been thinking more about the consequences of the Treasury’s grab of retirement assets. It is what the Treasury is calling the issue of providing a “Lifetime Income Option in Retirement Plans”.



The idea is that they will take control of assets in defined contribution retirement plans, probably only 401(k) plans because those show the largest accumulations. The owners of the retirement accounts would then receive a government issued annuity backed by Treasury Bonds, i.e., the interest paid on Treasury Bonds will be used to fund the annuities and provide for the periodic payment to the retiree when he retires. There are a lot of details that are uncertain. For example, I have seen the suggestion that accounts under $250,000 are too small and won’t be touched.


Right off, there are several problems, not only for the retiree but all of us. In this post I am not considering the unparalleled damage done to the economy by removing such a huge pool of savings from private hands. Nor am I including the additional amazing damage to the rights and concept of property that seizing retirement accounts would entail. (a good blog on these points, see Bokor) My focus for this article is on the financial consequences that are more immediate.


It is somewhat difficult to predict exactly what is going to happen because none of the details are available, and may not be until the Treasury begins moving retirement accounts into the annuities. The following is clear. At some point the government will begin seizing accounts. It may seize only the accounts of retirees and those it deems close to retirement. It is unknown if they’ll seize more. But it will at least seize those and issue annuities for at least those who are retired. This may not be for just the newly retired, but anyone who is retired and has an account large enough to be attractive to seize. Since the reason for seizing retirement accounts is to use the money for government purposes, it will convert the assets to cash to buy government bonds, probably a newly created special class. The government will sell the securities in the seized retirement accounts.


This point is absolutely necessary to understand: The government will be selling the seized securities.


Since it will be selling at least the securities of the retired and the soon to be retired, we can count on those securities entering the market. What will happen when these securities hit the market? Who will buy them? Where is the money going to come from to soak up all of the securities being offered? Remember, the government is beginning to soak up funds for the massive amount of new Bonds due to BO’s deficits. The Fed may try to pump in the money, but it will take maybe up to a trillion dollars to cover the securities being offered by the Treasury, if they only offer amount for retirees and the soon to be retired. Even the Fed would be wary to begin pumping that much money. The Fed is currently trying to find a way to remove nearly $1T from the economy without letting interest rates rise.


Further, as people realize what is going to happen, there will already be selling. The market will have dropped significantly already by the time the Treasury begins selling the newly seized retirement accounts.


What is going to happen is that the markets for stocks and possibly bonds will both tank (and interest rates will skyrocket). With the amount of selling pressure that the Treasury will exert upon the markets, the stock market will see drops beyond anything in its history.


Generally, I am not an alarmist. I am not one of those who have expected the stock market to dive at various points in over the last forty years. I didn’t take Harry Browne or Peter Schiff particularly seriously. So my thoughts here are not the conclusions that I reach in most circumstances. I am saying that I am very concerned about the consequences of this particular potential action by the government.


The drop in the stock market in the recent panic occurred because it was a panic. The media began pushing the idea that our economy was failing months before real signs could be seen. The government didn’t really react one way or another at that time (I mean in terms of immediate actions that pushed the market lower.). Much of the dive was panic and fear, and not due to immediate economic factors.


The stock market dive in 1929 had much to do with the attempts of the Fed to stop price inflation by sharply reigning in the money supply (see Economics and the Public Welfare by Benjamin Anderson). Then the panic was due to government caused economic factors.


The panic and dive of the stock market as a result of the seizing of retirement accounts will be due to massive selling pressure from the government trying to raise money by selling stolen securities. It will be very obvious. Even if they try to do it in a phased manner, e.g., over the course of a year, it will be steady and relentless. And since everyone will know what is going on, there will be few buyers.


Let me compare the potential situation with another scenario. There are some commentators who suggest that as the baby-boomers retire, they will be selling off their retirement assets causing the market to decline. It might be suggested that there is little difference between the government doing it and the actions of the retirees. I suppose that there are some retirees who will sell all of the stocks on retirement day and buy bonds to have an income in retirement. It would be a bad idea, but there are many bad ideas floating around out there being used to “guide” people in their personal financial decisions. The difference here is that the government is going to seize all of the assets of this group and sell them off comprehensively. For the two to be similar, all of the baby-boomers retiring that year would have to sell all of their stocks without regard to current market conditions. I am expecting the Treasury to ignore current market conditions because they have the requirement to come up with the money. There certainly will be some heat, at some time, but will it be soon enough, loud enough, and principled enough to stop it? The Treasury won’t stop before the markets come down. They may later, but there will already have been much damage.


One factor in the Treasury’s “thinking” that should not be forgotten is that their justification for seizing retirement assets and issuing annuities is for the benefit of the retiree. The Treasury is doing a good thing for those poor, innocent, clueless old people. The rationalization will see the Treasury through any disaster that occurs. It won’t be their fault, but the market, capitalism.


You might think that the extreme drop in the equity markets would be a good buying opportunity. It isn’t. This sell off is planned to be a continuous thing, because the Treasury is aiming at all of the retirement assets of everyone (at least over a certain size of account). It will need the following years of stolen securities even more because the people at the Treasury will not be expecting the drop in market value that will occur. As every politician in history has planned on things not changing when they enact their plan to extract money from the economy, the Treasury and its supporter will not expect the market drop, so their plans on what to do with the money will be thwarted and they will need more. Lots more. If there is any economy left after all that BO has planned for us, the markets will only begin to recover when the retirement plan windfall dries up and the government has no more to sell. That is, the market will recover if the government hasn’t taken all other assets as well.


The bond market may react a little differently. Many of these retirement accounts have significant government bonds, which the Treasury might just hold as is. Depending upon when this occurs, since BO’s deficits already requires expanded bond sales, interest rates may already be higher and the Treasury may not want to put more bonds on the market. Some of the money that came out of the stock market before the Treasury begins selling the stolen securities may have gone into the bond market, especially if the interest rate had begun to rise. There are too many variables, including the foreign Treasury Bond investors. How the foreigners will react, and how the dollar will be affected will take much consideration. Certainly a sell off of our stock market will not be considered a good thing for the dollar. It should drop.


For the retirees and the others that had their assets seized by the government the situation will be dire. They may have said to themselves that at least they would get an annuity equal to their retirement account. But instead, they will get what the government received for their assets as the market fell. Don’t expect the government to keep tabs on whose account held what. Expect that the original owners of the retirement accounts will be treated very badly. Explicitly, the original owners of the seized retirement accounts could receive $0.50 on the dollar, $0.35 on the dollar, $0.10 on the dollar. Who knows? We can count on these victims to end up with a government annuity worth much less than their original retirement account, that it will not payout a significant percentage, and since the government may go broke, that it may not last as long as needed (if our failing health care system doesn’t do them in first). If what the government provides is a standard annuity, the income will be fixed, and all of the retirees will be left defenseless to the continuing price inflation. Given the potentials for rising price inflation in the next several years, the retirees could experience severe hardship.


What should you do? Right off, regardless of your age, when you see that the government is going to be able to get its hands on retirement assets, stop contributing to your retirement plan. Stop! Get your friends and relatives and colleges and everyone to stop contributing. Save your money from being taken. Next, to the extent you can, withdraw your assets from all retirement accounts. Yes, there is a tax penalty. For anyone over the age of 59½ it will be a straight shot of income tax. For those younger, it will include a 10% penalty for early withdrawal. You have to do the math, but to leave the money in the retirement accounts is to subject yourself to the risk of the government seizing it.


Don’t put any money into the markets. Keep cash. Sell what securities you own in any taxable accounts that you can. I expect many more will be doing the same, so try to be the first. The market is going to go down and down, even before the Treasury starts liquidating the retirement accounts it has seized. Some cash from those sales is better than less. Liquidate. You might try foreign investments. You might try commodities. You might try monetary metals. You might try foreign cash. As people flee the Treasury’s asset grab and the equity market, the government may attempt to put in place controls to achieve its purpose of seizing assets. If so, many of these avenues may be closed off. Again, keep up to date on news and make cautious decisions.


What we can do now is to express our opposition to the Treasury’s plan. We also have to keep a careful watch on the progress of their plan and, if it gets approved, its implementation.

Their Plans for You

Courtesy of Lisa Doby, on Facebook, where she referred to this article. 

The government has plans for you, your money, your retirement plan.  You know that Obama and his gang are looking out for you, don't you?  So everything will be okay, right? 

Seriously, keep your eyes open, and be prepared to act.

http://market-ticker.org/archives/1830-401kIRA-Screw-Job-Coming.html