The Bankruptcy of America
"...In order to achieve current solvency, the government would have to raise payroll taxes by 68.5%, beginning today. Alternatively, the government could cut Social Security and non-Medicare outlays by 54.8% immediately and forever. (How do you think either policy would go over at the polls?) It's unlikely that either huge tax hikes or huge Social Security cuts will occur. Most likely, nothing will happen. And so, the government's insolvency will grow much larger. By 2008, FI will reach $54 trillion. To reach solvency at that point, taxes would have to increase by 73.7%..."
By Porter Stansberry
Source Daily Reckoning"There's nothing unprecedented about interest rates beginning with thenumbers 1, 2 or 3. They were the rule rather than the exception in the
days of the gold standard. But, as far as I know, no rates such as those quoted today ever appeared in a monetary system unballasted by gold or silver." - James Grant, Forbes 6/9/2003
America is bankrupt.
This from Jagadeesh Gokhale and Kent Smetters.
No, these men are not a Saudi terrorist or Southern right-wing extremist respectively. Instead, the former is the Senior Economic Advisor to the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, and the latter is a
full professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.
Credentials notwithstanding, the men's conclusion would seem preposterous. America has never seemed more prosperous. Even this recession has been minor.
On the other hand, their source seems reliable: Gokhale and Smetters got their data from the U.S. Department of Treasury. And they performed their present value calculations on the order of then Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill. Smetters was, until recently, on staff there, as the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy. The Treasury needed new numbers because the Office of Management and Budget's numbers have almost no connection to reality. (For example, OMB projects a constant 75-year average lifespan in its Social Security and Medicare cost estimates even though the average lifespan in America is already 78...and increasing at the rate of three months every year.)
When you look honestly at our government's future obligations, the numbers in the red quickly become so large they require entirely new measures to describe them. Gokhale and Smetters invent the term "financial imbalance," to measure Uncle Sam's impending bankruptcy. Financial imbalance means: "current federal debt held by the public plus the present value of all future federal non-interest spending minus the present value of all future federal receipts."
Or, in other words, Gokhale and Smetters use FI (financial imbalance) to estimate how broke Uncle Sam is when measured in constant dollars, today. FI is how much Uncle Sam owes now and will garner in the future versus how much he is on the hook for now and later.
And the number?
"Taking present values as of fiscal-year-end 2002 and interpreting the policies in the federal budget for fiscal year 2004 as current policies, the federal government's total fiscal imbalance is equal to $44.2 trillion."
Huge numbers like $44.2 trillion don't mean much to anyone without a comparison. So, consider: Uncle Sam's "financial imbalance" is 10 times the size of our current national debt.
In order to achieve current solvency, the government would have to raise payroll taxes by 68.5%, beginning today. Alternatively, the government could cut Social Security and non-Medicare outlays by 54.8%
immediately and forever. (How do you think either policy would go over
at the polls?)
It's unlikely that either huge tax hikes or huge Social Security cuts will occur. Most likely, nothing will happen. And so, the government's insolvency will grow much larger. By 2008, FI will reach $54 trillion. To reach solvency at that point, taxes would have to increase by 73.7%.
Looking at the government's finances in a serious way is like expecting a Ponzi scheme operator's numbers to add up. They don't. And they never will; that's the game. Making political promises is easier than paying for them. Theoretically, these debts could be inflated away by printing more dollars. But legally, this would require the repeal of the 1972 Social Security Act, which pegs benefits to inflation.
And that will not be a simple matter.
Worse, these financial imbalances stem from direct wealth redistribution, from one generation to the next. They're a disincentive for saving and investment. They hinder current growth today while bankrupting America tomorrow. But politically, they're sacred cows.
Ironically, the people most threatened by this hydra-headed financial and political monster are the very same people these programs were designed to benefit: the middle class.
Your typical 50-year-old, middle-class American isn't prepared to retire without a lot of help. In fact, most baby boomers will never even pay off their mortgages. Lawrence Capital Management notes in the last 19 quarters total mortgage debt increased by $3 trillion (+58%). To put this in perspective, prior to 1997, it took 13 years to add $3 trillion in mortgage debt. Or, said another way, before 1997, around $50 billion a quarter was being borrowed against homes. Today the run rate is near $200 billion per quarter, or four times more. Household borrowings now total $8.2 trillion in America and they continue to grow at near double-digit rates.
And it's not just mortgage debt that's problematic...
According to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, U.S. household consumer debt is up more than 12% from last year. Debt service, as a percentage of disposable income, is above 14%. Only twice in the last 25 years has debt service taken as large a chunk of America's income - and that's despite the lowest interest rates in fifty years.
When you look at these numbers, you quickly see the problems our favorite weekly scribe, John Mauldin, hopes we can "muddle" through: The government is making promises it can't keep without bankrupting the nation; the individual American has made promises to his bank he can't keep without bankrupting his family. And we haven't even looked at the biggest borrowers yet - corporations.
Corporate America has been on a borrowing binge for most of the last 25 years. Even the very best companies are now loaded up with debt. GE, for example, has been a net borrower since 1992.
And IBM borrowed $20 billion during the 1990s, while at the same time buying back $9 billion worth of its stock on the open market. Why would you take on expensive debt while buying back even more expensive stock? It made the income statement look good, converting debt to earnings per share. And that made Lou Gerstner's bank account look good, because he got paid in options whose value was influenced by earnings growth. Meanwhile, the balance sheet was covered in the concrete of debt.
Then there's Ford - one of America's greatest companies. Debt on the balance sheet is now 24 times equity.
Lower interests rates aren't necessarily helping, either.
Yes, firms can restructure debts and improve earnings thanks to lower interest expenses. But these lower interest rates are also keeping companies that should be bankrupt alive. Consider Juniper Networks, which shows a cumulative net loss of $37 million after ten years in business. Despite having over $1 billion in debt, Juniper was able to close a $350 million convertible bond deal that pays no interest coupon two weeks ago. The company is borrowing $350 million dollars until 2008 for free. Bankers say similar deals are closing at the rate of two a day.
Why? Because investors once burned by stocks are now plowing into bonds. Through April of this year, investors sank $53.7 billion into bond funds, compared to only $4.5 billion into stock funds.
The money isn't going into new capital investment. Instead, this "free" money is paying off more expensive, older loans. Corporate America is repairing its balance sheet. The ratio of long-term debt to total liabilities now stands at 68.2%, the highest level since 1959, according to economist Richard Berner of Morgan Stanley. And cash is staying put: corporate liquidity (current assets minus current liabilities) is at its highest level since the mid-1960s. The combination of cash and extended debts is easing the credit crunch. Bond yield spreads have narrowed between investment grade bonds and government treasuries, from 260 basis points in October 2002 to only 108 basis points currently.
You can also see this new debt isn't creating new demand by looking at capacity utilization. If businesses were spending again, capacity utilization would be up. It's not. Across the board in our economy, capacity utilization has fallen from around 85-90% in 1985 to below 75% today, according to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The data makes sense: areas of our economy that had the biggest investment boom show the biggest decline in capacity utilization today. Capacity utilization in electronics, for example, has declined from 90% in 1999 to under 65% today.
In the long term, debt restructuring does absolutely nothing to improve America's economic fundamentals. Lower interest rates aren't spurring new investment or new demand. More debt only postpones the day of reckoning. Thus, the current bond market mania is just the corporate version of the consumer's home equity loans: We're buying today what we couldn't afford yesterday...
Porter Stansberry
Editor's note: A version of this article was originally broadcast in John Mauldin's Weekly E-letter.
Porter Stansberry is the editor of Porter Stansberry's Investment Advisory. The former editor of several well-known financial letters, including Latin American Index, China Business and Investment, and The Fleet Street Letter, Mr. Stansberry is regularly quoted in leading financial journals, such as Barron's and World Money Analyst . Mr. Stansberry has helped his readers to cash in around the world: in 1997, he foresaw the Latin American crisis and published recommendations letting his readers in on an opportunity to make 650% in just three weeks. He also predicted the 1998 U.S. market correction, just two weeks before the August 31st downturn, when the Dow fell 512 points.For more information about his latest research, see: