PRESENTED BY PALAPPLE

ADVERTISE WITH US

Posted by iPhoto.org - Feb 26, 2009

Advertise here in this prominent space for only $100 per month, your advertisement will appear in all of the post pages available across this website.
Check out the link about for more advertisement options provided, get your message across!

Advertise with Us

SNAPSHOCK IS COMING TO TOWN

Posted by iPhoto.org On Feb 26, 2009

You better watch out,
You better bookmark,
You better ready your pics, cos I'm tell you why...

Snapshock is coming to town!!

Snapshock

THE BEST PLACE FOR DRY SEAFOOD

Posted by StarryGift On Mar 20, 2009

全香港其中一間最具規模的海味網上專門店。專營零售燕窩、鮑魚、海參、魚翅、花膠、元貝、冬蟲草,極具食療價值。此外亦提供各項中藥海味烹調方法,以導出各食品的固本培元及補生之效。

客戶服務熱線:3158 1276
傳真熱線:3158 1416
電郵查詢:info@starrygift.com

海味軒 | 香港燕窩海味網上專門店


Showing posts sorted by relevance for query retirement. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query retirement. Sort by date Show all posts

Sunday, February 28, 2010

Young People Living Off the System in Sweden

There are those who believe that Sweden has a low level of unemployment. This is far from the truth. The combination of high taxes, generous government benefits and a regulated labor market has led to many Swedes to rely on handouts rather than work. The system does succeed in one thing: hiding the true unemployment.


A few years ago, the Swedish economist Jan Edling noted that the number of people on sick leave and early retirement tended to correlate strongly with unemployment figures. The reason, Edling explained, was that many of the unemployed were hidden from the statistics through these measures.


Far from being a right-leaning economist, Edling at the time worked for LO ? an influential labor union with strong official and unofficial ties to the then-ruling Social Democratic party. The claim that the Swedish welfare state hid actual unemployment through various measures was unpopular among Swedish socialists. So unpopular in fact that Edlings report was not published, causing him to resign after 18 years faithful service.


Four years ago a center right government was elected with the promise to reduce visible and hidden unemployment. The government has had some success in this, at last before the financial crisis hit and again raised unemployment. Tax cuts and reduced generosity of government benefits have promoted work over dependence. However, among one group reliance on government has not decreased: young people who are relying on early retirement for their living.


The concept of relying on early retirement among the relatively youthful might sound a bit strange. Swedish politicians have even changed the term ?early retirement? into ?activity and sickness compensation? to make it sound more acceptable. And it has oddly enough become more or less an accepted fact that many young Swedes who cannot find a job instead rely on early retirement ? often on a permanent basis.


Since 2004 close to 70,000 Swedes in the ages 20-39 have been supported by early retirement. This represents close to three percent of the total population among this age group living in the country. In the Stockholm region, where the labor market is strong, two percent of the young population is living on early retirement. In regions where jobs are scarcer, the figure is four percent. Even among the youngest group ? those between 20-24 years ? more than two percent of Sweden?s population is being supported by early retirement.


One reason for the popularity of early retirement is because of the increasing troubles for young Swedes to find employment. According to Statistics Sweden, the unemployment amongst those between 15-24 years was fully 24 percent in the beginning of 2009. Although Sweden does not have minimum wages set by the government, the vast majority of the employers have to follow labor union contracts and the contracts in turn include very high effective minimum wages.


Not only is the price of youth labor set too high for demand to meet supply, but employers find it too risky to hire inexperienced youth since rigid labor market regulation make it difficult to fire those who do not perform well on their job.


The high unemployment amongst youth is not only an economical, but also a social issue. Many young people feel depressed since they cannot find a meaningful purpose and cannot contribute to society. This feeling, strong among the youth who are not even officially employed, but rather hidden from the statistics through early retirement, sick leave or other systems.


The OECD measures the percentage of those who are officially declared to be outside of the workforce but view themselves as being unemployed. This group is referred to as ?discouraged workers?. In countries such as Denmark, Germany and the United Kingdom only 0.1 percent of the labor force of 15-24 year olds is composed of discouraged workers. In Sweden, the figure is almost a hundred times higher.


The Swedish welfare system is seen as many as a role model. When it comes to creating opportunities for the youth however, Sweden could learn much from free-market systems. Or for that matter it could learn from neighboring welfare state Denmark, which has combined welfare mechanisms with a dynamic labor market. The combination, coined by previous Social Democratic Prime Minister Poul Nyrup Rasmusson as ?flexicurity?, is far superior to the system of high effective minimum wages and rigid labor regulations introduced by the Social Democrats and their labor union allies in Sweden.


Nima Sanandaji is the CEO of Swedish think tank Captus, and author of a report on early retirement among the youth for the think tank Timbro.


Photo: by Claudio.Ar



Full story at http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Newgeography/~3/Y9Lyll-aBy8/001437-young-people-living-off-system-sweden

Saturday, August 28, 2010

Schwarzenegger on Public Pensions and the Cost of the "Protected Class"

Now that Schwarzenegger is a certifiable lame duck (dead duck may be a more appropriate term) Schwarzenegger sees fit to take on public unions in a major way. It's too late now (for him) even as he speaks the truth.

Please consider Public Pensions and Our Fiscal Future by Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Recently some critics have accused me of bullying state employees. Headlines in California papers this month have been screaming "Gov assails state workers" and "Schwarzenegger threatens state workers."

I'm doing no such thing. State employees are hard-working and valuable contributors to our society. But here's the plain truth: California simply cannot solve its budgetary problems without addressing government-employee compensation and benefits.



Thanks to huge unfunded pension and retirement health-care promises granted by past governments, and also to deceptive pension-fund accounting that understated liabilities and overstated future investment returns, California is now saddled with $550 billion of retirement debt.

The cost of servicing that debt has grown at a rate of more than 15% annually over the last decade. This year, retirement benefits?more than $6 billion?will exceed what the state is spending on higher education. Next year, retirement costs will rise another 15%. In fact, they are destined to grow so much faster than state revenues that they threaten to suck up the money for every other program in the state budget.

At the same time that government-employee costs have been climbing, the private-sector workers whose taxes pay for them have been hurting. Since 2007, one million private jobs have been lost in California. Median incomes of workers in the state's private sector have stagnated for more than a decade. To make matters worse, the retirement accounts of those workers in California have declined. The average 401(k) is down nationally nearly 20% since 2007. Meanwhile, the defined benefit retirement plans of government employees?for which private-sector workers are on the hook?have risen in value.

Few Californians in the private sector have $1 million in savings, but that's effectively the retirement account they guarantee to public employees who opt to retire at age 55 and are entitled to a monthly, inflation-protected check of $3,000 for the rest of their lives.

In 2003, just before I became governor, the state assembly even passed a law permitting government employees to purchase additional taxpayer-guaranteed, high-yielding retirement annuities at a discount?adding even more retirement debt. It's as if Sacramento legislators don't want a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, but a government of the employees, by the employees, and for the employees.

For years I've asked state legislators to stop adding to retirement debt. They have refused. Now the Democratic leadership of the assembly proposes to raise the tax and debt burdens on private employees in order to cover rising public-employee compensation.

Much needs to be done. The Assembly needs to reverse the massive and retroactive increase in pension formulas it enacted 11 years ago. It also needs to prohibit "spiking"?giving someone a big raise in his last year of work so his pension is boosted. Government employees must be required to increase their contributions to pensions. Public pension funds must make truthful financial disclosures to the public as to the size of their liabilities, and they must use reasonable projected rates of returns on their investments. The legislature could pass those reforms in five minutes, the same amount of time it took them to pass that massive pension boost 11 years ago that adds additional costs every single day they refuse to act.

...

All of these reforms must be in place before I will sign a budget.

I am under no illusion about the difficulty of my task. Government-employee unions are the most powerful political forces in our state and largely control Democratic legislators. But for the future of our state, no task is more important.
Schwarzenegger Washes His Hands

Schwarzenegger drones on and on about who is to blame. He also acts as if he was fiscally responsible.

That is far from the truth. In Turn out the lights California, the party is over I blasted Schwarzenegger's fiscally reckless proposals.
Flashback March 2, 2007: Schwarzenegger wants $500 billion to rebuild California

Sound Bites


  • $42.7 billion in general obligation bonds issued last year is "only the foot in the door, to whet the appetite."
  • It will take $500 billion to "rebuild California the way it ought to be".
  • $500 billion is "too big for people to digest, so you don't talk about that" even though he is talking about it.
  • California needs $500 billion even though it has "done tremendously with the revenue increases".
  • California will not issue less debt even if the economy slows.
  • California "could face lower tax revenues" but he opposes tax hikes.

Well here we are, 9 months later and the $4.1 billion reserve went to a $14 billion deficit in the last 4 months.
Thank God Schwarzenegger did not get what he asked.

Now in massive revisionist history he attempts to take credit for being fiscally conservative. Please, let's stop the charades.

While there is some truth he wanted concessions from unions, unlike Governor Chris Christie, he never fought for them very hard. Only now is he saying "All of these reforms must be in place before I will sign a budget."

He should have said that in 2009, 2008, and 2007. He is saying that now that he is a lame duck. While I commend the idea, the problems he was elected to fix are more broken than ever.

It will be interesting to see how this budget battle plays out, but no amount of hand-washing can absolve Schwarzenegger of his share of the blame.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List



Full story at http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/MishsGlobalEconomicTrendAnalysis/~3/b0Ckmla5XVo/schwarzenegger-on-public-pensions-and.html

Saturday, November 7, 2009

Police Pensions and Voodoo Actuarials

A key argument that public-safety officials use to justify their absurdly high pension benefits ?- i.e., ?3 percent at 50? retirements that allow them to retire with 90 percent or more of their final year?s pay as early as age 50 -- is this: We die soon after retirement because of all the stresses and difficulties of our jobs. This is such a common urban legend that virtually every officer who contacts me mentions this ?fact.? They never provide back-up evidence.


Here is one article I?ve been sent by police to make their point. It was written in 1999 by Thomas Aveni of the Police Policy Council, a police advocacy organization. Here is the key segment: ?Turning our attention back towards the forgotten police shift worker, sleep deprivation must be considered a serious component of another potential killer; job stress. The cumulative effect of sleep deprivation upon the shift-working policeman appears to aggravate job stress, and/or his ability to cope with it.


Even more troubling is the prospect that the synergy of job stress and chronic sleep indebtedness contributes mightily to a diminished life expectancy. In the U.S., non-police males have a life-expectancy of 73 years. Policemen in the U.S. have a life expectancy of 53-66 years, depending on which research one decides to embrace. In addition, police submit workman's compensation claims six times higher than the rate of other employees ...?


I don?t doubt that police work can be very stressful, but many jobs are stressful, many have long hours, many are more dangerous, many involve sleep deprivation. As intelligent adults, we all need to weigh the risk and benefits of any career choice. Aveni uses the high amount of workers compensation claims as evidence of the dangers of the job, but given the tendency of police and firefighters to abuse the disability system ? miraculously discovering a disabling injury exactly a year from retirement, thus getting an extra year off and protecting half the pension from taxes ? I?m not convinced this proves anything. Given the number of officers who are retired based on knee injuries, back aches, irritable bowel syndrome, acid reflux, etc., this suggests that police game the system and know their fellows on the retirement board will approve virtually any disability claim.


There are so many legal presumptions (if an officer develops various conditions or diseases it is legally presumed to be work related, whether or not it actually is work related) that bolster the scam. ?Disabled? officers often go right out and get similar law enforcement jobs, which calls into question how disabling the injury really is. Regarding sleep deprivation, police and firefighters have secured schedules that minimize the long hours; then the officers often choose to work overtime for double salary, which perhaps is the real cause of sleep problems.


The big whopper in the Aveni article, however, is the claim that officers live to be 53-66. If that were so, there would be no unfunded liability problem because of pension benefits. Police officers would retire at 50-55, then live a few years at best.


But, for example, according to the state of California pubic employees' retirement system (CalPERS) actuary, police actually live longer than average these days, which isn?t surprising given that the earlier people retire and the wealthier they are, the longer they tend to live. And according to a 2006 report to the Oregon Public Employees Retirement System, these are the age-60 life expectancies for the system?s workers (meaning how many years after 60 they will live):


-- Police and fire males: 22.6

-- General service males: 23.4

-- Police and fire females: 25.7

-- General service females: 25.7


So we see that police and firefighters who retire at age 60 live, on average, well into their 80s. That?s real data and not the hearsay used by apologists for enormous police pensions.


CalPERS actuary David Lamoureux sent me a CalPERS presentation called ?Preparing for Tomorrow,? from the retirement fund?s 2008 educational forum. The presentation features various ?pension myth busters.?


Here is Myth #4 (presented as part of a Power Point presentation): ?Safety members do not live as long as miscellaneous members.? CalPERS officials explain that ?rumor has it that safety members only live a few years after retirement.? Actuarial data answers the question: ?Do they actually live for a shorter time?? The presentation considers the competing facts: ?Safety members tend to have a more physically demanding job, this could lead to a shorter life expectancy. However, miscellaneous members sit at their desk and might be more at risk to accumulating table muscle!? Fire officials, by the way, make identical claims about dying as early as police officials.


For answers, CalPERS looked at an experience study conducted by its actuarial office in 2004. It looked at post-retirement mortality data for public safety officials and compared it to mortality rates for miscellaneous government workers covered by the CalPERS system.


Here are the CalPERS life expectancy data for miscellaneous members:


-- If the current age is 55, the retiree is expected to live to be 81.4 if male, and 85 if female.

-- If the current age is 60, the retiree is expected to live to be age 82 if male, and 85.5 if female.

-- If the current age is 65, the retiree is expected to live to be age 82.9 if male, and 86.1 if female.


Here is the CalPERS life expectancy data for public safety members (police and fire, which are grouped together by the pension fund):


-- If the current age is 55, the retiree is expected to live to be 81.4 if male, and 85 if female.

-- If the current age is 60, the retiree is expected to live to be age 82 if male, and 85.5 if female.

-- If the current age is 65, the retiree is expected to live to be age 82.9 if male, and 86.1 if female.


That?s no mistake. The numbers for public safety retirees are identical to those of other government workers. As CalPERS notes, average public safety officials retiree earlier than average miscellaneous members, so they receive their higher level of benefits for a much longer time.


Here is CalPERS again: ?Verdict: Myth #4 Busted! Safety members do live as long as miscellaneous members.?


The next time you hear this ?we die early? misinformation from a cop, firefighter or other public-safety union member (most of them probably believe it to be true, given how often they have read this in their union newsletters), send them to CalPERS for the truth!


I expected these numbers for the recently retired, given the pension enhancements and earlier retirement ages, but it seemed plausible that police in particular might have had a point about mortality rates in earlier days. But even that?s not true. A 1987 federal report from the National Criminal Justice Reference Center, ?Police Officers Retirement: The Beginning of a Long Life,? makes the following point:


?'The average police officer dies within five years after retirement and reportedly has a life expectancy of twelve years less than that of other people.? Still another author states, ?police officers do not retire well.? This fact is widely known within police departments. These statements (which are without supporting evidence) reflect a commonly held assumption among police officers.


Yet, a search of the literature does not provide published studies in support. Two suggested sources, the Los Angeles City Police and Massachusetts State Police, have provided data which also appears to contradict these assumptions. Reported in this paper are results from a mortality study of retired Illinois State Police (ISP) officers. It suggests that ISP officers have as long, if not longer, life expectancy than the population as a whole. Similar results also arise when examining retirees from the Ohio Highway Patrol, Arizona Highway Patrol, and Kentucky State Police.?


The report also casts doubt on the commonly repeated statistic that police have higher rates of suicide and divorce than other people. The federal report found the divorce rates to be average and suicide rates to be below average. This is important information because it debunks a key rationale for the retirement expansions, although more recent data need to be examined on divorce/suicide rates.


Police have an oftentimes tough job, but many Americans have oftentimes tough and sometimes dangerous jobs. This needs to be kept in perspective. Public officials need to deal in reality rather than in emotionally laden fantasy when considering the public policy ramifications of pensions.


This article was excerpted from Greenhut?s forthcoming book, ?Plunder! How Public Employee Unions Are Raiding Treasuries, Controlling Our Lives And Bankrupting The Nation? to be published by The Forum Press in November.



Full story at http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Newgeography/~3/4qcylxlaVeI/001145-police-pensions-and-voodoo-actuarials

Sunday, November 8, 2009

Police Pensions and Voodoo Actuarials

A key argument that public-safety officials use to justify their absurdly high pension benefits ?- i.e., ?3 percent at 50? retirements that allow them to retire with 90 percent or more of their final year?s pay as early as age 50 -- is this: We die soon after retirement because of all the stresses and difficulties of our jobs. This is such a common urban legend that virtually every officer who contacts me mentions this ?fact.? They never provide back-up evidence.


Here is one article I?ve been sent by police to make their point. It was written in 1999 by Thomas Aveni of the Police Policy Council, a police advocacy organization. Here is the key segment: ?Turning our attention back towards the forgotten police shift worker, sleep deprivation must be considered a serious component of another potential killer: job stress. The cumulative effect of sleep deprivation upon the shift-working policeman appears to aggravate job stress, and/or his ability to cope with it.


"Even more troubling is the prospect that the synergy of job stress and chronic sleep indebtedness contributes mightily to a diminished life expectancy. In the U.S., non-police males have a life-expectancy of 73 years. Policemen in the U.S. have a life expectancy of 53-66 years, depending on which research one decides to embrace. In addition, police submit workman's compensation claims six times higher than the rate of other employees ...?


I don?t doubt that police work can be very stressful, but many jobs are stressful, many have long hours, many are more dangerous, many involve sleep deprivation. As intelligent adults, we all need to weigh the risk and benefits of any career choice. Aveni uses the high amount of workers compensation claims as evidence of the dangers of the job, but given the tendency of police and firefighters to abuse the disability system ? miraculously discovering a disabling injury exactly a year from retirement, thus getting an extra year off and protecting half the pension from taxes ? I?m not convinced this proves anything. Given the number of officers who are retired based on knee injuries, back aches, irritable bowel syndrome, acid reflux, etc., this suggests that police game the system and know their fellows on the retirement board will approve virtually any disability claim.


There are so many legal presumptions (if an officer develops various conditions or diseases it is legally presumed to be work related, whether or not it actually is work related) that bolster the scam. ?Disabled? officers often go right out and get similar law enforcement jobs, which calls into question how disabling the injury really is. Regarding sleep deprivation, police and firefighters have secured schedules that minimize the long hours; then the officers often choose to work overtime for double salary, which perhaps is the real cause of sleep problems.


The big whopper in the Aveni article, however, is the claim that officers live to be 53-66. If that were so, there would be no unfunded liability problem because of pension benefits. Police officers would retire at 50-55, then live a few years at best.


But, for example, according to the state of California pubic employees' retirement system (CalPERS) actuary, police actually live longer than average these days, which isn?t surprising given that the earlier people retire and the wealthier they are, the longer they tend to live. And according to a 2006 report to the Oregon Public Employees Retirement System, these are the age-60 life expectancies for the system?s workers (meaning how many years after 60 they will live):


-- Police and fire males: 22.6

-- General service males: 23.4

-- Police and fire females: 25.7

-- General service females: 25.7


So we see that police and firefighters who retire at age 60 live, on average, well into their 80s. That?s real data and not the hearsay used by apologists for enormous police pensions.


CalPERS actuary David Lamoureux sent me a CalPERS presentation called ?Preparing for Tomorrow,? from the retirement fund?s 2008 educational forum. The presentation features various ?pension myth busters.?


Here is Myth #4 (presented as part of a Power Point presentation): ?Safety members do not live as long as miscellaneous members.? CalPERS officials explain that ?rumor has it that safety members only live a few years after retirement.? Actuarial data answers the question: ?Do they actually live for a shorter time?? The presentation considers the competing facts: ?Safety members tend to have a more physically demanding job, this could lead to a shorter life expectancy. However, miscellaneous members sit at their desk and might be more at risk to accumulating table muscle!? Fire officials, by the way, make identical claims about dying as early as police officials.


For answers, CalPERS looked at an experience study conducted by its actuarial office in 2004. It looked at post-retirement mortality data for public safety officials and compared it to mortality rates for miscellaneous government workers covered by the CalPERS system.


Here are the CalPERS life expectancy data for miscellaneous members:


-- If the current age is 55, the retiree is expected to live to be 81.4 if male, and 85 if female.

-- If the current age is 60, the retiree is expected to live to be age 82 if male, and 85.5 if female.

-- If the current age is 65, the retiree is expected to live to be age 82.9 if male, and 86.1 if female.


Here is the CalPERS life expectancy data for public safety members (police and fire, which are grouped together by the pension fund):


-- If the current age is 55, the retiree is expected to live to be 81.4 if male, and 85 if female.

-- If the current age is 60, the retiree is expected to live to be age 82 if male, and 85.5 if female.

-- If the current age is 65, the retiree is expected to live to be age 82.9 if male, and 86.1 if female.


That?s no mistake. The numbers for public safety retirees are identical to those of other government workers. As CalPERS notes, average public safety officials retiree earlier than average miscellaneous members, so they receive their higher level of benefits for a much longer time.


Here is CalPERS again: ?Verdict: Myth #4 Busted! Safety members do live as long as miscellaneous members.?


The next time you hear this ?we die early? misinformation from a cop, firefighter or other public-safety union member (most of them probably believe it to be true, given how often they have read this in their union newsletters), send them to CalPERS for the truth!


I expected these numbers for the recently retired, given the pension enhancements and earlier retirement ages, but it seemed plausible that police in particular might have had a point about mortality rates in earlier days. But even that?s not true. A 1987 federal report from the National Criminal Justice Reference Center, ?Police Officers Retirement: The Beginning of a Long Life,? makes the following point:


?'The average police officer dies within five years after retirement and reportedly has a life expectancy of twelve years less than that of other people.? Still another author states, ?police officers do not retire well.? This fact is widely known within police departments. These statements (which are without supporting evidence) reflect a commonly held assumption among police officers.


"Yet, a search of the literature does not provide published studies in support. Two suggested sources, the Los Angeles City Police and Massachusetts State Police, have provided data which also appears to contradict these assumptions. Reported in this paper are results from a mortality study of retired Illinois State Police (ISP) officers. It suggests that ISP officers have as long, if not longer, life expectancy than the population as a whole. Similar results also arise when examining retirees from the Ohio Highway Patrol, Arizona Highway Patrol, and Kentucky State Police.?


The report also casts doubt on the commonly repeated statistic that police have higher rates of suicide and divorce than other people. The federal report found the divorce rates to be average and suicide rates to be below average. This is important information because it debunks a key rationale for the retirement expansions, although more recent data need to be examined on divorce/suicide rates.


Police have an oftentimes tough job, but many Americans have oftentimes tough and sometimes dangerous jobs. This needs to be kept in perspective. Public officials need to deal in reality rather than in emotionally laden fantasy when considering the public policy ramifications of pensions.


This article was excerpted from Greenhut?s forthcoming book, ?Plunder! How Public Employee Unions Are Raiding Treasuries, Controlling Our Lives And Bankrupting The Nation? to be published by The Forum Press in November.



Full story at http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Newgeography/~3/4qcylxlaVeI/001145-police-pensions-and-voodoo-actuarials

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

How A Secular Bear Market Could Be Disastrous For Retirees

By John Mauldin, Investors Insight


One of my favorite analysts is Ed Easterling of Crestmont Research. We used to get together a whole lot more when he lived in Dallas, but he has since moved to the wilds of Oregon. Ed’s first book, Unexpected Returns, is a classic work that I think is a must-read for all stock market investors.


And now he favors us with yet another book, called Probable Outcomes: Secular Stock Market Insights, in which he takes on the mostly silly research, done by so many analysts, that purports to show what an investor can expect to make from his retirement portfolio over time. I can’t tell you how disastrous this simplistic analysis can be for retirees.


This week’s Outside the Box is an excerpt from this latest book.


From Amazon:


“Probable Outcomes continues the Crestmont Research tradition of full-color charts and graphs that enable investors and advisors to differentiate between irrational hope and a rational view of the stock market. The unique combination of investment science and investment art explores the market from several perspectives, and addresses the implications for a broad range of investors. Ed Easterling delivers an insightful analysis of the likely course for the stock market over the 2010 decade. Investors and advisors will benefit from this timely outlook and its message of reasonable expectations and value-added investing. This essential resource provides a comprehensive understanding of the fundamental principles that drive the stock market. Based on years of research, Probable Outcomes offers sensible conclusions that will empower you to take action, guide your investment choices during the current period of below-average returns, and allow you to invest with confidence, whatever your financial strategy.”


I can’t recommend this book strongly enough. If you are retiring or thinking about doing so and think you can safely take 5% a year, please, please read this book. You can get it out www.Amazom.com/probable


And now let’s turn to Ed’s insights.


Your starting to feel human again analyst,


John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box




Stay Out of the ROOM


An Excerpt from Probable Outcomes: Secular Stock Market Insights


By Ed Easterling


Copyright 2010, Crestmont Research


Al Pacino, Dionne Warwick, Fran Tarkenton, Jack Nicklaus, Mario Andretti, Peter Fonda, Raquel Welch, Ringo Starr, and Smokey Robinson—what do they have in common with secular stock market cycles?


They were all born in 1940 and were subsequently impacted by secular bull markets. The choice of that year, which is not precise but was chosen for illustration, is that people born around 1940 aged into their forties by 1980. Most people and families accumulate savings slowly, if at all, during their twenties and thirties. By their forties, and certainly fifties, they begin to build retirement nest eggs. Therefore those born around 1940 had the opportunity to build sizable retirement savings during the 1980s and ’90s if they invested well as they reached their prime saving period.


David Brinkley, Shelley Winters, Walter Matthau, and others born in 1920 were saving during the secular bear market of the 1960s and ’70s. With little stock market gain over that period, their savings would be filled with contributions that earned little additional investment income. That modest capital base, however, then encountered the secular bull market of the 1980s and ’90s, and though the nest was small, the eggs from it were abundant.


Chunks, Not Streams


This walk down memory lane illustrates several points. First, secular stock market cycles deliver returns in chunks, not streams. Second, most investors live long enough to have the relevant investment period extend across both secular bulls and secular bears. Third, investors do not get to pick which type of cycle comes first. Fourth, investors need to be aware that they will likely encounter both types of cycles. Those who experience secular bears during accumulation are generally better prepared than investors who are spoiled by a secular bull. A secular bull market is a pleasant surprise to retirees who endured a secular bear on the way to retirement. For retirees who grew to expect a secular bull during accumulation, the unexpected secular bear can be considerably disruptive.


Given where the stock market and valuations are today, the circumstances are quite different for people across different age groups. [This excerpt from chapter 11 of Probable Outcomes discusses one of the three sets of constituents and explores the concepts that affect this category.]


Distribution


A retiree today has a relatively long-term horizon, with an average retirement age near sixty and an expected lifespan for the last surviving spouse of almost thirty years. Relatively healthy retirees today can expect one or both spouses to live well past ninety. Whether you are retired now or on the cusp of retirement, your savings has been built over many years of toil and saving to provide or supplement your income during retirement. For pre-retirees who are still building the nest egg, this analysis can provide insights about what to expect in the future. The objective is to determine a safe assumption for investment returns, and a safe level of income or withdrawals from savings each year to sustain a desired lifestyle—the rate at which it is safe to withdraw golden eggs from the goose.


Safe Withdrawal Rate (SWR) is the term that investment advisors, financial planners, and do-it-yourself investors use to represent the acceptable rate at which funds can be withdrawn from an investment portfolio while still providing a high confidence of income for the balance of a retiree’s lifetime. In effect, this is the rate of withdrawal to avoid the ROOM, where you Run Out Of Money!


SWR is often stated as the percentage of an investor’s initial portfolio that can be safely withdrawn annually after retirement to cover life’s expenses. The main variables are: (1) success rate, as reflected in the percentage likelihood of not running out of money; (2) portfolio mix and return assumptions for investment income; (3) how long the retiree assumes that he or she will live; and (4) a variety of other variables including tax rates, investment expenses, etc.


Some advisors or planners will go so far as to advocate that today’s long-term retirees invest heavily in the stock market. Those pundits say, “A market that has never lost money over thirty-year periods won’t let you down in the future.” It’s true that there has never been a thirty-year period when stock market investors overall have lost money, yet there have been quite a few thirty-year periods that have bankrupted senior citizens who were relying upon their stock portfolios for retirement income.


Most analysts and models suggest that a retiree can withdraw 4% to 5% of the original balance each year, increased annually to cover inflation, and still have a very good chance of not running out of money. The models, however, often do not use reasonable assumptions and do not sufficiently consider risk. Generally, such high withdrawal rates relate to investment portfolios that are significantly weighted toward stocks, especially during the current and recent environment of low bond returns.


For illustration, assume that a retired couple invests exclusively in the stock market because they “need” the extra return and should feel “safe” that the stock market will not let them down over a thirty-year period. Further, assume no income taxes, investment fees, commissions, or other charges. Admittedly, these assumptions probably deliver the best-case scenario and conclusions.


For the analysis, the portfolio includes a diversified stock market portfolio using the S&P 500 index including dividends. The time horizon is thirty years, which assumes that the last surviving spouse will need money for at least thirty years after the retirement date. What, therefore, are the chances of success, of not running out of money, and avoiding a job search after age eighty?


Many models use historical average rates of return. As previously reflected across multi-decade periods in the stock market, average rarely happens. Most often, returns from the market are either well above average or well below average. Regardless, as far as retirement success is concerned, each retiree’s results will be binary—the retiree either will be successful or will run out of money. It doesn’t matter whether the retiree—on average—has a 75% chance of success. The reality for each retiree is that success will be either 100% or 0%. Though probabilities are interesting, retirees should thus be keenly focused on the implications of the assumptions and their likely impact on the outcome.


Using history since 1900 as the laboratory to assess the likelihood of success, a retiring couple who start with withdrawals of 4% have a 95% chance of success. In other words, they have a 95% chance of not running out of money before the last surviving spouse no longer needs withdrawals. For example, this represents an initial annual withdrawal of $40,000 for a retiree with $1 million, increasing the $40,000 at the start of each year by the inflation rate. By the way, about half of retirees will live past the expected average lifespan; thus the success rates are actually lower for the half of retirees in the lucky group.


A 95% chance of success sounds pretty good—on average. The 95% success rate, however, means that you have a 1-in-20 chance of having to find a job at age eighty. If you have enough money to be thinking about SWR, you likely have a lifestyle that you don’t want to compromise. When you think about last-to-survive issues, it has even greater significance.


To further emphasize the concept of success rate, assume that the doctor comes into your hospital room and says that your upcoming surgery has a good success rate: a 95% chance of success. The doctor performs this procedure five times a day. Since that’s twenty per week, how many of you will immediately hope that you will not be the one that week who does not make it.


A 95% success rate sounds good to all those who are standing around the operating table, but it is quite different for the one who is actually on the table. The patient will be thinking about his or her particular circumstances—whether the odds are more likely to be above or below the 95%. A high success rate may still represent a significant risk.


Before digging into the details, what does the overall average look like? Over the 81 thirty-year periods since 1900, on average across all periods, the retiree who started with $1 million could have withdrawn 4% plus the inflation rate each year and still ended with $7.0 million. The average retiree accumulated seven times his initial savings, even after withdrawing 4% plus inflation every year for thirty years. As for the failure rate, only 4 of the 81 periods resulted in the retiree running out of money.


What are the implications for investors, especially at this stage of a secular bear market? For retirees who are primarily invested in the stock market, the most significant factor determining future returns is the level of valuation at the time of initial investment, as measured by the P/E ratio. So the level of the P/E at retirement has a significant impact on the individual investor’s chances of success in retirement.


To better understand the potential success rate for a couple entering retirement, stock market history can be dissected into five ranked sets called quintiles. These sets are organized from the highest to the lowest P/E ratio at the start of the respective thirty-year periods. The result is that the highest quintile (the top 20% of all periods) includes the thirty-year periods since 1900 that started with P/Es of 18.7 and higher. The second set (the next 20%) cuts off at a P/E of 15.1, the third at 12.2, the fourth at 10.4, and the last at 5.3.


Why does this matter? While the success rate for the entire group was 95%, for a retiree who enters retirement with a portfolio dedicated to stocks when P/E is 18.7 or higher, the expected success rate based upon history is 76%—analogous to more than one loss per day for the surgeon, rather than one per week using the overall average.


When P/E started at relatively high levels historically, thereby fundamentally positioning the stock market for below-average returns, there was a significant adverse impact on future success. When P/E started at relatively lower levels, returns were always sufficient for 4% withdrawals—100% success from periods that started with a low P/E.


As figure 11.2 reflects, the starting level of P/E has a direct impact on retirement success and on ending capital. The implication for today’s investor is that the likelihood of financial success in retirement is considerably less than most pundits advocate. Twenty years from now, a response of “who knew?” won’t be much comfort for retirees in the employment line at the local job fair. This is especially true since a rational understanding of history and the drivers of longer-term stock market returns can help today’s retiree avoid that surprise.


Figure 11.2. SWR Profile By P/E Quintile: 4% SWR, 30-Year Periods Since 1900


chart


As presented in figure 11.2, covering the 81 thirty-year periods since 1900, the top 20% of the periods based upon the beginning P/E started with P/E at 18.7 or higher. Within that 20% of the periods, about 1 in 4 (24%) of the thirty-year periods resulted in the retiree running out of money before the end of the period. When that occurred, the retiree was out of money on average during the 27th year and as early as the 23rd year. For those 76% who were fortunate enough to not run out of money, the average retiree that started with $1.0 million ended the thirty years with almost $2.8 million.


Keep in mind that success provides a wide path, but failure is a thin line: those who succeed will end with a little or a lot; those who fail get to zero, or start counting pennies as their savings dwindle. Further, in reality, for retirees who invest during top quintile periods, the chance of suffering the painful effects of failure is even higher than 24%. Since a few of the periods ended relatively close to zero, fear forced some retirees to drastically reduce spending as their portfolios dwindled toward the end.


For most retiree investors over the past century, those fortunate enough to have retired when stock valuations and P/Es were lower, the results were much better. As reflected in figure 11.2, the benefits were directly and inversely related to the starting level of valuation. As the starting valuation declines, returns increase, and the resulting average balance in the portfolio at the end of the thirty years increases. This is another tangible example of the way that starting valuation significantly impacts future results.


A number of advocates and studies promote initial withdrawal rates of 5% or more of the starting portfolio: “You can have $50,000 a year from your million dollars, and have it increase annually by inflation and still last thirty years.” The calculated success rate historically is 75% for retirees using a 5% initial withdrawal rate from stock market portfolio. For many retirees, that probability of success would be marginally acceptable. When the impact of starting P/E is included in the analysis, however, the odds change significantly for most of the quintiles.


As figure 11.3 shows, though the average may have been 75%, one of the sets reflects success as low as 41% while another had everyone making it safely through the thirty years. As you reflect upon the figure to assess the likely odds of either financial success or failure during your retirement, it is crucial to recognize the importance and impact of the starting level of P/E. Most important, it does not matter how many of the scenarios provide your heirs with multimillions; you will likely be most concerned about reducing the chances of being forced to work again at eighty. Risk management is not just about enhancing success; it is about avoiding the unacceptable failures.


Figure 11.3. SWR Profile By P/E Quintile: 5% SWR, 30-Year Periods Since 1900


chart


Though a statistical analysis of history provides averages across a wide variety of market conditions, the relevant periods for analysis are those with similar characteristics. Given the significant impact of P/E on returns, that factor will be a major driver for retirees over this decade and beyond. When individuals or couples retire with P/E in the upper quintiles, thereby driving below-average returns, their expected results will be below average. In some instances the risks will be so great that they may need to adjust their expectations, or they may need portfolio management to enhance potential success.


Retirees during secular bear markets may be limited to withdrawal rates that are less than 3%, or in some scenarios as much as 4%, to sustain their desired lifestyle successfully throughout retirement. Retirees who want to withdraw 5% or more will need a more consistent and higher return profile for their investments than passive investments in the stock market or bond market can provide when starting valuations are high. For those retirees, it will require a more actively managed and value-added approach to their portfolios, including investments in the stock market, even then with no guarantees of success.


There is no magic solution, no one way to achieve success. Given that retirees over this decade and longer are confronting the conditions of a secular bear market, it is important to start with a reasonable expectation about future returns and market conditions, then to apply appropriate investment strategies and approaches. Early personal planning and ongoing investment discipline can help toward avoiding the ROOM.


Winston Churchill could have been talking about this decade in the stock market when he said, “Let our advance worrying become advance thinking and planning.” The practical implications of another secular bear market decade should be a call to action rather than a call for retreat. Churchill offers wisdom that acknowledges challenging conditions and provides a solution toward success. His advice encourages investors to seek the benefits of preparation and risk management, the essential elements for investing through this secular bear toward the next secular bull market.

Join the conversation about this story »






Full story at http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/businessinsider/~3/MGjPJ4VUMZ0/stay-out-of-the-room-2011-2

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

Michael Hiltzik: Social Security and the life expectancy myth

Social Security must be in great shape. If it weren't, then its critics wouldn't have to resort to myths and misrepresentations to attack it.


The life expectancy myth is one of its crowd's favorite chestnuts, carried recently, the way Mary Mallon carried typhoid fever, by such supposed friends of the program as former Sen. Alan Simpson. As with many myths, the opportunity for mischief is embedded in the proposed solutions to the mythical problem -- in this case, raising the normal retirement age in a way that blows the Social Security disability insurance fund to smithereens.


There are few useful studies of disability and life expectancy rates across occupations, something that would help underscore the potentially discriminatory effect of a wholesale rise in the retirement age. Some researchers have relied on such proxies as family income or educational attainment; a paper using the latter methodology can be found here. And here's a brief from the advocacy group Social Security Matters explaining the dangers of raising the retirement age.


The column begins below.



Every politician worthy of the name knows that the easiest policy changes to put over are those that don't kick in until well into the future. The idea, of course, is that by the time their dire ramifications become evident, they'll be someone else's problem.


That must be why it has become so fashionable in Washington to propose raising the Social Security retirement age.


This nostrum is an element of the "Roadmap for America's Future" promoted by GOP Rep. Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin (who calls it, with Orwellian duplicity, "modernizing" the retirement age). In recent weeks it has also been embraced by such Democrats as House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, who says "we should consider a higher retirement age or one pegged to lifespan," and Rep. James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, who proposes raising the retirement age by one month every year.


President Obama's bipartisan deficit commission is believed to be toying with the retirement age change as part of its Social Security plan. We don't really know, because the deliberations of its Social Security working group are taking place behind closed doors. So much for "open government."


Read the whole column.




Full story at http://feeds.latimes.com/~r/MoneyCompany/~3/DpvZVIT1WdA/michael-hiltzik-social-security-and-the-life-expectancy-myth.html

Monday, August 31, 2009

Spending Collapses In All Generation Groups

It's no secret that boomers fearing an underfunded retirement have sharply cut spending. However, it's not just boomers cutting back. Consumer attitudes toward debt have changed across all age groups.

A recent Gallup Poll shows just how dramatic a spending shift has taken place. Please consider Boomers? Spending, Like Other Generations?, Down Sharply.
Baby boomers' self-reported average daily spending of $64 in 2009 is down sharply from an average of $98 in 2008. But baby boomers -- the largest generational group of Americans -- are not alone in pulling back on their consumption, as all generations show significant declines from last year. Generation X has reported the greatest spending on average in both years, and is averaging $71 per day so far in 2009, down from $110 in 2008.
Self-Reported Spending



Population Share By Age Group



The chart shows Boomers and Generation X are the two demographic largest groups. Spending is down by 34.7% among boomers and 35.4% in Generation X. Spending is down by 33.7% in generation Y, the third largest demographic group. That is a remarkably consistent decline in spending.

Spending by the "Greatest Generation" is down a whopping 44% but that group only constitutes 5% of the population.

Here are some more interesting charts from the article.

Annual Incomes - Boomers vs. Generation X



Surprisingly, annual incomes are nearly identical for boomers and generation X. However, Generation Y income is dramatically less as the following chart shows.

Annual Incomes -
Boomers vs. Generation Y



Bottom Line
Baby boomers have pulled back considerably on their spending this year, but they are not alone in doing so. Gallup finds significant declines among all generations in average reported daily spending in 2009 compared to 2008. Given that consumer spending is the primary engine of the U.S. economy, it's not clear how much the economy can grow unless spending increases from its current low levels. But spending may not necessarily be the best course of action for baby boomers as they approach retirement age and prepare to rely on Social Security and their retirement savings as primary sources of income. Indeed, the two generations consisting largely of retirement-age Americans consistently show the lowest levels of reported spending.
I can add to those thoughts. Boomers and Generation X are loaded to the gills with debt. Boomers in particular are downsizing and income growth is stagnating across the board.

Moreover, boomers headed into retirement are scared half to death about insufficient funds. Those boomers are not about to go on a spending spree.

Please consider the Incredible Shrinking Boomer Economy.

Boomer Statistics

  • $400 Billion: Amount that will come out of annual U.S. consumption as thrifty boomers push savings rate from 1% to nearly 5%.

  • 47%: Boomers share of national disposable income in 2005 before the bubble burst. Boomers contributed only 7% to national savings.

  • 2.4%: Forecasted GDP growth over the next three decades as boomers ratchet back. GDP has grown 3.2% a year since 1965.

  • 69%: Portion of boomers aged 54 to 63 who are financially unprepared for retirement.

  • 78%: Boomers' share of GDP growth during the bubble years of 1995 to 2005

Those stats are from a McKinsey study, and there is nothing remotely inflationary about boomer demographics.

Nor is there anything inflationary about Generation X demographics. Generation X's have seen boomers blow it. By sharply curtailing spending, generation X at least has chance to right the ship before retirement. It's too late for most boomers. Time ran out.

Now consider generation Y with 19% of the population. Think the income levels of generation Y are going to catch boomers or generation X?

When?

Finally, think about tightening lending standards and attitudes about debt in general. Because of lower incomes and tighter lending standards, it is unlikely that Generation Y will be either able or willing to carry debt burdens to sustain a strong recovery.

Distortionary vs. Inflationary

Bernanke can flood the world with "reserves" and indeed he has. However, he cannot force banks to lend or consumers to borrow.

Here is a simple analogy that everyone should be able to understand: You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink. And if the horse does not want to drink, it was a waste of time and energy to lead the horse to the water.

Yet every day someone comes up with another convoluted theory about how inflationary this all is. It is certainly "distortionary" in that it creates problems down the road and prolongs a real recovery by keeping zombie banks alive (as happened in Japan). However, it is not (in aggregate) going to cause massive inflation because it is not spurring the creation of new debt.

Consumers and banks both are suffering from a massive hangover. Their willingness and ability to drink is gone. No matter how many pints of whiskey Bernanke sets in front of someone passed out on the floor, liquor sales will not rise.

In a debt-based economy, it is extremely difficult to produce inflation if consumers will not participate. And as noted above, demographics and attitudes strongly suggest consumers have had enough of debt and spending sprees.

Those pointing to flawed measures of money supply as proof of inflation just don't get it, and likely never will.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List

Full story at http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/08/spending-collapses-in-all-generation.html

Saturday, January 2, 2010

Colorado's PERA "2/2/2" Funding Plan Hopelessly Unsound

Colorado's Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) is currently only 70% funded. Projections show it will be less than 50% funded by 2012. To get the fund back in shape PERA officials offer plan for sustainability.
PERA officials last week presented their proposal to rescue the ailing retirement fund to the Legislative Audit Committee.

The draft legislation, called 2/2/2 Plus, includes a 2 percent increase in employee contributions, a 2 percent increase in employer contributions, and a 2 percent cap on cost of living increases for retirees.

More than 438,000 people belong to the Public Employees Retirement Association, which faces a multi-billion-dollar deficit over the long-term because of high payouts and stock market instability. PERA includes four independent trusts covering different segments of the labor market: judicial, state, schools and local government workers. In January, Denver Public Schools will be added as a fifth division.

"Change has to occur to ensure the system is sustainable to all of our members," Meredith Williams, PERA's executive director, has said.

According to the plan, solvency would be reached in 30 years. Previously, the association operated on a 60-year amortization plan.

To reach that goal, return on investments would be reduced to 8 percent, from the current 8.5 percent.

The increase in employer contributions would begin in 2013 and continue through 2017, while the employee increase would begin in 2014 and run through 2017. Cost of living increases (COLA) would be capped at 2 percent and would be dependent on the Consumer Price Index. (The index, CPI-W, is generally used to determine cost of living raises for labor contracts.) Currently, the COLA raise for members is 3.5 percent annually.
Cadillac Of Retirement Funds

The Greeley Tribune discusses the "2/2/2" proposal in PERA plan aims to keep fund solvent.
Rightly so, many consider the Colorado Public Employee Retirement program the Cadillac of retirement funds.

Much like Social Security, PERA can't operate business as usual and continue to be solvent. The four funds PERA manages ? for state, public schools, local government and judicial employees ? all will eventually run out of money in the next 30 years if something doesn't change.

After months of meetings and work sessions, staff members and the board of directors for PERA has announced a plan to make the fund solvent for the foreseeable future.

We recognize this plan isn't perfect. For one, it puts a financial burden on public entities already struggling to balance budgets. Having to find the additional contributions to PERA will make this even more difficult, and certainly could mean other programs and services will suffer. That is a big concern.

Some employees have also balked at having their contributions increase, and for some in the lower income brackets, this may create a bit of a hardship.

Still, overall we believe the PERA plan is prudent. First, it spreads the additional costs around between employees and beneficiaries, including future retirees who will not see the automatic cost of living increases in their benefits that they enjoyed in the past.

Most important, though, the proposal will, under the best financial predictions, keep the fund solvent and insure that future retirees now paying into the system will see their benefits when they decide to stop working. With the current system, that might not happen.

We hope our state legislators will seriously consider these changes to PERA. We believe it will protect public employees in the long run, and still give retirees the Cadillac of retirement programs. Maybe not an Escalade, but still pretty close to a Seville.
The first question to ask is "Why the hell do public employees remotely deserve a Cadillac plan when no one in private industry gets one?"

The "2/2/2" plan forces employers (read taxpayers) to pony up still more so that public workers get Cadillacs while private plans get Pintos if they get anything at all.

Without a doubt, defined benefit pension plans need to be killed before they kill the taxpayers.

Plan Unfair And Financially Unsound

It is galling for anyone, especially the Tribune to think this plan is fair. Moreover, the plan is still financially unsound.

Here are some slides from the November 2009 PERA Legislative Audit Presentation.



click on any chart for sharper image

There are four independent trusts covering different segments of the labor market: judicial, state, schools and local government workers. In January, Denver Public Schools will be added as a fifth division.

Here are what two of the funds look like right now.


At a 7% rate of return the State Division will be completely out of money by 2026. At an 8.5% rate of return the money would run out by 2029.



At a 7% rate of return the School Division will be completely out of money by 2029. At an 8.5% rate of return the money would run out by 2033.

The above charts reflect the current situation.

Based on the proposals and an 8% return here are the new projections.





Even with those proposals, the plans are woefully underfunded all the way until 2036 on the School Division and as far as the eye can see on the State Division.

Unfortunately the new projections do not show what happens at 7% or 6% but it for sure will not look pretty.

Taxpayers of course are on the hook for any decencies.

Unfortunately, an expected rate of return of 8% is not realistic at all, especially for the next decade. Unemployment is going to remain high, the odds of another stock market crash area high, the odds of a double dip recession are high, and boomer demographics ensure that spending and thus tax revenue as well as stock market earnings are not going to return to 2006 levels of growth.

The stock market right now is one of the most overvalued in history. It only looks good in comparison to the 2007 S&P valuation or the 2000 Nasdaq valuation. The S&P has been flat for a decade and it is quite possible if not likely it will be flat at best for another 5-10 years.

Here is another way of looking at it. Ten year treasuries are yielding under 4%. It will take a lot of excess risk to remotely come close to 8% returns.

My Proposal

1) Kill defined benefit plans for all new employees
2) If plan assumptions are not met, the plan participants, not taxpayers take the hit
3) Taxpayers add 0% additional funding. Enough is enough.

Point number two will allow whatever ridiculous assumptions PERA wants to make. However, I would recommend PERA assume something along the lines of 5-6% expected rates of return than 8%.

The "2/2/2" proposal is not remotely a down payment on what needs to happen. This plan should not be approved. It is a joke that addresses no long-term issues.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List



Full story at http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/MishsGlobalEconomicTrendAnalysis/~3/CRN0ab_AERI/colorados-pera-222-funding-plan.html



Advertise with Us