• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Разное415
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации32
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы192
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
Фискальный обрыв
05 июня, 16:56

The Worst Investment Strategy Ever

Fearmongering analysts, or “permabears,” make money by hawking illogically pessimistic investment strategies. This bull market threatens their livelihoods.

09 мая, 12:07

Republicans war over taxes

Full-on reformers face resistance from those willing to settle for tax cuts.

08 мая, 12:03

Coming soon: The fiscal cliff to end all fiscal cliffs

President Donald Trump and the GOP Congress will have to avert a debt default and government shutdown — and that's just for starters.

01 мая, 22:23

Why the Phrase 'Late Capitalism' Is Suddenly Everywhere

An investigation into a term that seems to perfectly capture the indignities and absurdities of the modern economy

17 апреля, 19:26

Poll: Trump woes take toll on GOP

President Donald Trump continues to lag his predecessors in public approval and his unpopularity appears to be trickling down to other Republicans in Washington.Trump’s approval rating, according to a new Pew Research Center survey released Monday, is 39 percent — precisely the same as two months ago. The percentage of Americans who disapprove of Trump is virtually unchanged: 54 percent, compared to 56 percent in February.Forty-four percent of Americans disapprove of Trump very strongly, according to the poll conducted April 5-11, more than the 30 percent who approve very strongly.The most profound shifts in the Pew survey are in Americans’ perceptions of the GOP beyond Trump. Just 40 percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of the Republican Party, down from 47 percent in January, prior to Trump’s inauguration.The Democratic Party, however, isn't faring dramatically better — views of the Democratic Party also ticked down from 51 percent in January to 45 percent now.On the issues, Americans trust Republicans over Democrats on dealing with the threat of terrorism by a 12-point margin, 48 percent to 36 percent. The GOP also has a 5-point edge on gun policy, 46 percent to 41 percent.Americans are more evenly divided on the economy and trade, with Republicans holding 3-point advantages on each, and on taxes. But more Americans think Democrats would do a better job on a number of other issues, including some that were previously GOP strengths.By an 8-point margin, Americans say Democrats better represent their views on government spending, 48 percent to 40 percent. In January 2013, just days after lawmakers avoided the so-called “fiscal cliff” by passing spending and taxation provisions, Republicans held a 6-point advantage on this question.Americans now trust Democrats over Republicans when it comes to dealing with immigration, 50 percent to 39 percent. In nine separate Pew surveys conducted over the course of Barack Obama’s second term as president, the two parties were never separated by more than 2 points on this question.On foreign policy, Americans have shifted drastically toward Democrats: Forty-nine percent say the party would do a better job, compared with 36 percent who trust the GOP more. But last April, more Americans trusted Republicans (46 percent) than Democrats (38 percent).Health care has represented the GOP’s most concerted domestic effort so far, and the poll shows little confidence in the party moving forward. A 54 percent majority says Democrats would do a better job on health care, far greater than the 35 percent who say Republicans would do a better job.Trump struggled to unite the disparate factions among Republicans in the fight to replace the 2010 Affordable Care Act, and 68 percent of poll respondents describe the GOP as “mostly divided” on issues and its vision for the future. By comparison, 48 percent say Democrats are mostly divided. The internecine battles have also taken a toll on House Speaker Paul Ryan’s popularity, the poll suggests. A majority of Americans, 54 percent, disapprove of the way Ryan is handling his job, while only 29 percent approve. That puts Ryan on par with former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi; Pelosi’s low approval ratings during the first two years of Obama’s presidency resulted in successful Republican efforts to tie Democratic candidates to the unpopular speaker.The Pew Research Center poll surveyed 1,501 adults and has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.9 percentage points.

11 апреля, 22:45

Update: Predicting the Next Recession

CR April 2017 Update: In 2013, I wrote a post "Predicting the Next Recession". I repeated the post in January 2015 (and in the summer of 2015, early last year and in August 2016) because of all the recession calls. In late 2015, the recession callers were out in force - arguing the problems in China, combined with the impact on oil producers of lower oil prices (and defaults by energy companies) - would lead to a global recession and drag the US into recession.  I didn't think so - and I was correct.I've added a few updates in italics by year.  Most of the text is from January 2013.A few thoughts on the "next recession" ... Forecasters generally have a terrible record at predicting recessions. There are many reasons for this poor performance. In 1987, economist Victor Zarnowitz wrote in "The Record and Improvability of Economic Forecasting" that there was too much reliance on trends, and he also noted that predictive failure was also due to forecasters' incentives. Zarnowitz wrote: "predicting a general downturn is always unpopular and predicting it prematurely—ahead of others—may prove quite costly to the forecaster and his customers".Incentives motivate Wall Street economic forecasters to always be optimistic about the future (just like stock analysts). Of course, for the media and bloggers, there is an incentive to always be bearish, because bad news drives traffic (hence the prevalence of yellow journalism).In addition to paying attention to incentives, we also have to be careful not to rely "heavily on the persistence of trends". One of the reasons I focus on residential investment (especially housing starts and new home sales) is residential investment is very cyclical and is frequently the best leading indicator for the economy. UCLA's Ed Leamer went so far as to argue that: "Housing IS the Business Cycle". Usually residential investment leads the economy both into and out of recessions. The most recent recovery was an exception, but it was fairly easy to predict a sluggish recovery without a contribution from housing.Since I started this blog in January 2005, I've been pretty lucky on calling the business cycle.  I argued no recession in 2005 and 2006, then at the beginning of 2007 I predicted a recession would start that year (made it by one month with the Great Recession starting in December 2007).  And in 2009, I argued the economy had bottomed and we'd see sluggish growth.Finally, over the last 18 months, a number of forecasters (mostly online) have argued a recession was imminent.  I responded that I wasn't even on "recession watch", primarily because I thought residential investment was bottoming.[CR 2015 Update: this was written two years ago - I'm not sure if those calling for a recession then have acknowledged their incorrect forecasts and / or changed theirs views (like ECRI and various bloggers). Clearly they were wrong.] [CR April 2017 Update: Now it has been over four years!  And yes, ECRI has admitted their recession calls were incorrect.  Not sure about the rest of the recession callers.]Now one of my blogging goals is to see if I can get lucky again and call the next recession correctly.  Right now I'm pretty optimistic (see: The Future's so Bright ...) and I expect a pickup in growth over the next few years (2013 will be sluggish with all the austerity).The next recession will probably be caused by one of the following (from least likely to most likely):3) An exogenous event such as a pandemic, significant military conflict, disruption of energy supplies for any reason, a major natural disaster (meteor strike, super volcano, etc), and a number of other low probability reasons. All of these events are possible, but they are unpredictable, and the probabilities are low that they will happen in the next few years or even decades.[CR 2016 Update: The recent recession calls are mostly based on exogenous events: the problems in China and in commodity based economies (especially oil based).  There will be some spillover to the US such as fewer exports (and an impact on oil producing regions in the US), but unless there is a related financial crisis, I think the spillover will be insufficient to cause a recession in the US.]2) Significant policy error. This might involve premature or too rapid fiscal or monetary tightening (like the US in 1937 or eurozone in 2012).  Two examples: not reaching a fiscal agreement and going off the "fiscal cliff" probably would have led to a recession, and Congress refusing to "pay the bills" would have been a policy error that would have taken the economy into recession.  Both are off the table now, but there remains some risk of future policy errors.  Note: Usually the optimal path for reducing the deficit means avoiding a recession since a recession pushes up the deficit as revenues decline and automatic spending (unemployment insurance, etc) increases.  So usually one of the goals for fiscal policymakers is to avoid taking the economy into recession. Too much austerity too quickly is self defeating.[CR 2017 Update: Austerity was a mistake (obvious at the time).  And it is possible that we will see serious policy mistakes from the new administration (a complete wildcard).  And it is possible the Fed could tighten too quickly. ]1) Most of the post-WWII recessions were caused by the Fed tightening monetary policy to slow inflation. I think this is the most likely cause of the next recession. Usually, when inflation starts to become a concern, the Fed tries to engineer a "soft landing", and frequently the result is a recession. Since inflation is not an immediate concern, the Fed will probably stay accommodative for a few more years.So right now I expect further growth for the next few years (all the austerity in 2013 concerns me, especially over the next couple of quarters as people adjust to higher payroll taxes, but I think we will avoid contraction). [CR 2015 Update: We avoided contraction in 2013!] I think the most likely cause of the next recession will be Fed tightening to combat inflation sometime in the future - and residential investment (housing starts, new home sales) will probably turn down well in advance of the recession. In other words, I expect the next recession to be a more normal economic downturn - and I don't expect a recession for a few years. [CR April 2017 Update: This was written in 2013 - and my prediction for no "recession for a few years" was correct.  This still seems correct today, so no recession in the immediate future (not in 2017). ]

08 апреля, 01:12

McConnell delivers first big win of Trump's presidency

After a rough start for the new administration, ’It’s nice to have a success,’ the GOP leader tells POLITICO in an interview.

25 марта, 03:27

Nobody Knew Governing Could Be So Complicated

The Obama years left Republicans with excellent ratings from the Heritage Foundation, and no idea how to whip a vote.

16 марта, 02:55

The Ryan Myth Is In Big Trouble

The myth of Paul Ryan is in serious trouble. This was likely inevitable, but it certainly is on stark display in the debate among Republicans over his “Ryancare” bill, which was supposed to be the “repeal and replace Obamacare” answer to all conservatives’ dreams. Quite obviously, Ryan’s bill fell far short of this lofty goal. It is currently being savaged from all sides within the Republican caucus alone. But beyond the bill’s likely failure, the myth surrounding Ryan is also on life support. The Ryan myth began with a book about three Republican “young guns” who were the best and the brightest of their generation and who seemed destined for leadership positions within the party. Ryan was lauded along with Eric Cantor and Kevin McCarthy as the future of the Republican Party, but ― importantly ― this was before the Tea Party phenomenon. The phrase “young guns” itself projects a certain cowboy swagger, a manly Reaganesque image of a gun-totin’ fighter for the cause. But again, that was before the Tea Party was launched. Nowadays, Ryan doesn’t seem to have quite the swagger of a “young gun” anymore, because that role has been co-opted by the Tea Partiers themselves. But the Ryan myth didn’t end there. Ryan was supposed to be the wonkiest of the wonky, a real numbers guy who understood all the details and could call them up from memory with ease ― a counterpart to Bill Clinton’s wonkiness, in a lot of ways. Before he took the reins of the House, he was in charge of the Republicans’ efforts to hammer the federal budget into their preferred conservative mold. The budgets he came up with were Draconian in their treatment of the poor, but not a whole lot of people noticed because the House budget bills were routinely ignored by the Senate. Ryan won kudos from within his own party, but didn’t actually influence policy all that much. This was the perfect position for the Ryan myth to thrive. Without any real-world consequences, Ryan was held up to be a genius at putting the numbers together in an orthodox conservative fashion. Nobody complained much, because nobody was really affected by Ryan’s dream budgets, to put it another way. But then the Tea Partiers essentially forced Speaker of the House John Boehner to step aside. Boehner had tried herding these particular cats without much success, and eventually he got tired of beating his head against the Tea Party’s brick wall. The budget negotiations had broken down multiple times in spectacular fashion (see: fiscal cliff, government shutdown) because the Tea Partiers refused to ever budge one tiny inch on their outlandish demands. It was their way or the highway, and eventually Boehner chose the highway ― all the way back home to Ohio. Paul Ryan was then very reluctantly drafted to take Boehner’s place. He really didn’t want the job, but all the other House Republicans told him he was the only possible person who could get things done in the House. He was needed by his party, so eventually he (still very reluctantly) stepped up. Since that time, the House has not noticeably gotten any more productive. But also since that time, they haven’t had very many public intraparty battles, by design. Ryan began his tenure by strongarming everyone into kicking all the big budget decisions far down the road ― after the 2016 elections, in other words. This avoided any contentious Tea Party revolts during the campaign, and in that respect it worked perfectly. That was then, but now all those deadlines are beginning to loom once again. And the Tea Party problem hasn’t gone away in the meantime (although they did re-brand themselves the “Freedom Caucus” for some inexplicable reason). What this means is that 2017 is going to see a return to the same old knife fights within the Republican caucus. The debt ceiling is going to have to be raised, the budget is going to have to be voted on, and on top of that Republicans are itching to “reform the tax code” (which, of course, is a euphemism for “give enormous tax cuts to the wealthiest of the wealthy, once again”). The Ryan myth was that he was the knight in shining armor who was going to be able to get all Republicans to agree on actual bills (with actual numbers), for the good of the party and for the betterment of the conservative agenda. He was the uber-wonk. He could reach out to the Tea Party faction and convince them to get with the Ryan program. That myth is soon going to be revealed to be nothing more than a fantasy. The entire Ryancare fiasco is informative. Ryan put out his favored bill, and fully expected Republicans to fall into line behind him, while he bravely fought off the slings and arrows from the Democrats. That was the plan, at any rate. They were going to rush the bill through both houses with lightning speed, and prove to the country that they were incredibly capable of governing, now that they had a Republican in the White House. It has only been a week and a half since the bill was publicly unveiled, and already Ryancare is in deep trouble ― within his own Republican ranks. Ryancare is being attacked by the Tea Partiers (for not being sufficiently cruel to the poor) and by moderate Republicans (for already being too obviously cruel to the poor). Ryan may not even be able to scrape up enough votes to pass the bill in the House, and even if he does manage that Herculean feat, it has already been pronounced “dead on arrival” in the Senate ― by Republicans. Ryan, so far, is refusing to change his bill in any meaningful way, but the opposition from both the far right and the center within his party means that any possible meaningful shift in the bill is going to please one group while further disappointing the other. If it was just the Tea Partiers grousing, Ryan might have some room for compromise, but that’s not the case. Somewhere, John Boehner is laughing. Because this is exactly the sort of thing which so frustrated him. The competing demands by the various GOP factions are impossible, at times, to reconcile. And remember, Ryancare is a bill without an obvious deadline to meet on the calendar. The only pressure to pass the bill comes from Republicans’ own political needs. There is no date when Social Security checks are going to stop being mailed if the bill doesn’t pass, in other words. The situation (and the time pressure) is entirely self-imposed by Ryan and the Republicans. What all this means is that Ryancare probably won’t pass, at least not in anything like its current form. But what does all this disarray mean for the upcoming budget fights? If Ryancare goes down in flames, the conservative media and the Tea Partiers are all going to be patting themselves on the back in a big way. They’re already personally demonizing Ryan in the same fashion they used to treat Boehner. But the upcoming legislative fights do actually have deadlines attached. When a bill simply must be passed (as with the debt ceiling, for instance), Ryan’s going to have only one route left open to him ― the same route Boehner routinely took. Ryan will have to allow the Tea Partiers to make as much noise as they want for a period of time, but then he’s going to eventually have to sit down with persuadable Democrats in an effort to pass a bill. If Ryan’s own caucus won’t back him up, then he’s got to cross the aisle to get the votes. This will give Nancy Pelosi the same power she regularly wielded with Boehner, the power to strip the most odious parts of the Republican bill away before a single Democrat would vote for it. Which, in a feedback loop, will further enrage the Tea Partiers. Ryan (and, to a lesser extent, Mitch McConnell) will be held up as a traitor to the conservative cause for “backing down.” This is the point where the Ryan myth will lie in tatters on the floor of the House. For all his supposed wonkiness, Ryan still won’t be able to get the Tea Partiers to see any sort of reason. If they’ve already defeated him once, over Ryancare, then they’re only going to see themselves as stronger for the upcoming fights. Which will make Ryan’s position weaker. Which, again, was exactly where John Boehner regularly found himself. Of the three supposed young guns, Ryan is the only real success story (so far). Eric Cantor was primaried out of his congressional seat by a Tea Partier. Kevin McCarthy was briefly considered for the job Ryan’s now doing, but that only lasted about fifteen minutes. What’s truly ironic is that the image of the young guns was that of outsiders challenging their party to come up with a youthful and modern approach to conservatism. But now Ryan’s on the inside looking out at the Tea Partiers storming his castle. Ryan’s mythical brand of radicalism has been supplanted by the Tea Party’s truly radical attitudes towards governing. The failure of Ryancare is going to be momentous, because it not only will be a massive disappointment to Republicans who love to hate Obamacare, but also because it will be a harbinger for future congressional battles to come. If Ryancare comes to a disastrous end, one has to wonder how much longer Paul Ryan will be able to keep his speakership. Call it the Ryan myth smacking head-on into the Tea Party reality.   Chris Weigant blogs at: Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant   -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Выбор редакции
10 февраля, 18:04

Preliminary February Consumer Sentiment declines to 95.7

The preliminary University of Michigan consumer sentiment index for February was at 95.7, down from 98.5 in January.Consumer confidence retreated from the decade-peak recorded in January, with the decline centered in the Expectations Index. To be sure, confidence remains quite favorable, with only five higher readings in the past decade. Importantly, the data do not reflect any closing of the partisan divide. The Michigan survey includes several free-response questions which ask respondents to answer in their own words, without any prompting or proposed answer categories. When asked to describe any recent news that they had heard about the economy, 30% spontaneously mentioned some favorable aspect of Trump’s policies, and 29% unfavorably referred to Trump’s economic policies. Thus a total of nearly six-in-ten consumers made a positive or negative mention of government policies. In the long history of the surveys, this total had never reached even half that amount, except for five surveys in 2013 and 2014 that were solely dominated by negative references to the debt and fiscal cliff crises. Moreover, never before have these spontaneous references to economic policies had such a large impact on the Sentiment Index: a difference of 37 Index points between those that referred to favorable and unfavorable policies. emphasis addedClick on graph for larger image.Consumer sentiment is a concurrent indicator (not a leading indicator).

02 января, 11:46

Your Paycheck in 2017

Uncle Sam is a greedy and angry man. And in 2017, he's going to take money that you worked hard to earn straight of your paycheck before you even get it! Not that that's much of a surprise. For Americans, that is something that will not be any different from any other year since 1943, but since Uncle Sam is always changing how much he takes out of your paycheck each year, we here at Political Calculations do our best to keep up with those changes so you can know in advance what your paycheck will look like after Uncle Sam has taken what he's going to from it. The way we keep up with those changes is by building tools each year to estimate how much of your income the U.S. government will withhold from your paycheck each year, where we also make it possible to answer paycheck-related questions that might come up for you during the next year, which include: How much take home money will I have each payday? How will that change if I get a raise? What if I boost my pre-tax 401(k) or 403(b) retirement plan contributions - how will that change my paycheck? Will I take a hit from the Additional Medicare Tax? [That's the "shared responsibility contribution" that doesn't ever go into Medicare's trust funds, which can affect higher income earners.] How would a flexible savings account for health care or dependent care expenses affect my take home pay? Our tool below is designed to answer those questions, as well as a number of others that may occur to you that we haven't considered! Just enter the indicated information as it applies for you, and we'll do our best to estimate how much of the money you work hard to earn will still be in your possession after the federal government has withheld what it wants from your paycheck! .nobrtable br { display: none } Your Paycheck and Tax Withholding Data Category Input Data Values Basic Pay Data Current Annual Pay Pay Period Daily Weekly Biweekly Semimonthly Monthly Quarterly Semiannually Annually Federal Withholding Data Filing Status Single Married Number of Withholding Allowances 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 401(k) or 403(b) Contributions Pre-Tax Contributions (%) After Tax Contributions (%) Flexible Spending Account Annual Contribution Data Health Care Spending Account Dependent Care Spending Account What if You Had a Raise? Desired Raise (%) Your "Typical" Paycheck Data Category Calculated Results Values Basic Income Data Proposed Annual Salary (Including Raise!) Typical Paycheck Amount Federal Tax Withholding Amounts U.S. Federal Income Taxes U.S. Social Security Taxes U.S. Medicare Taxes U.S. Additional "Medicare" Taxes (If Applicable) 401(k) or 403(b) Contributions Pre-Tax Contributions After-Tax Contributions Total Contributions Flexible Spending Account Contributions Health Care Spending Account Dependent Care Spending Account Your Paycheck's Bottom Line Take Home Pay Estimate Basic Net Paycheck Amount ... But, After Social Security's Taxable Income Cap Is Reached, It Becomes (If Applicable, for a Full Paycheck) ... And Then, After Additional Medicare Tax Income Threshold Is Reached, It Becomes (If Applicable, for a Full Paycheck) Now that we've given you a sense of how much money you'll have withheld in 2017 from each of your paychecks by the U.S. federal government, we should note that there are some really complicating factors that may come into play during the year depending upon how much you earn. For example, in 2017, once you have earned over $127,200, you will no longer have the Social Security payroll tax of 6.2% of your income deducted from your paycheck (or 12.4% if you are self-employed, but our tool above is designed for those employed by others). But then, by the time that happens, you'll have long been paying taxes on your income that are taxed at rates that are at least 10% higher than those paid by over half of all Americans. There's also the complication provided by the so-called "Additional Medicare Tax" that your employer is required to begin withholding from your paycheck if, and as soon as, your year-to-date income rises above the $200,000 mark, which is part of the new income taxes imposed by the "Affordable Care Act" (a.k.a. "Obamacare"). Since the money collected through this 0.9% surtax on your income does not go to directly support the Medicare program, unlike the real Medicare payroll taxes paid by you and your employer, it is really best thought of as an additional income tax. In the tool above, in case the amount of your annual 401(k) or 403(b) retirement savings contributions exceed the annual limits set by law, we've limited the results our tool provides to be those consistent with their statutory limits, and will do so as if you specifically set the percentage contributions for these contributions with that in mind. Also, our tool does not consider whether you might take advantage of the "catch-up" provisions in the law that are available to individuals Age 50 or older. Things That May Happen in 2017With a new President coming into office on 20 January 2017, it likely won't be long before proposals to reform U.S. personal income taxes start working their way through the U.S. Congress. If and when any such legislation that alters income tax withholding might be passed into law, we will supersede this tool with a new tool that reflects the changes in the nation's tax laws. Until that happens, this tool should present results that reasonably resemble what your paycheck will look like in 2017. Elsewhere on the WebThere are other paycheck calculators like this on the Internet, including the very well done tools available at PaycheckCity.com. We really like PaycheckCity's calculators because they allow you to determine the amount of state income tax withholding that will be taken out of your paycheck separately from what the federal government takes. Payroll processor ADP also has a salary paycheck calculator, but we think that it's not quite as user friendly as PaycheckCity's calculators. Then again, if you live in one of the seven states that have no personal income tax for wage and salary income (Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, or Wyoming), our tool above will provide you with a very good estimate of your actual take-home pay. We'll also note that both New Hampshire and Tennessee do not tax wage and salary income, but they do both tax dividend and interest income (Tennessee will eliminate this state income tax in 2022). Fortunately, those state-level income taxes won't affect your paycheck (and our tool's results), but if you live in these states and have significant investment income, it's something of which you should be aware. Previously on Political CalculationsWe've been in the business of calculating people's paychecks (not including state income tax withholding) since 2005! Your 2005 Paycheck Your 2006 Paycheck Your 2007 Paycheck Your 2008 Paycheck Your 2009 Paycheck Your Paycheck in 2010 Your Paycheck in 2011 Your Paycheck in 2012 Your Paycheck in 2013: Part 1 - the "same as 2012" version. Your Paycheck in 2013: Part 2 - the "over the fiscal cliff" version. Your Paycheck in 2013: Part 3 - the "post-fiscal cliff deal" version. Your Paycheck in 2014 Your Paycheck in 2015 Your Paycheck in 2016 Your Paycheck in 2017

04 декабря 2016, 15:15

The Victory of ‘No’

The GOP’s unprecedented anti-Obama obstructionism was a remarkable success. And then it handed the party to Donald Trump.

01 декабря 2016, 13:10

GOP may delay Obamacare replacement for years

Republicans are setting up a high-stakes deadline to replace the health care law.

29 ноября 2016, 14:00

Senate to offer bipartisan tributes to Biden

Vice President Joe Biden has his share of bipartisan admirers in the Senate, where he served for 36 years before heading to the White House as President Barack Obama’s second-in-command. And a group of Democrats and Republicans will honor Biden’s legacy both in the administration and on Capitol Hill next month with a series of Senate floor tributes to the outgoing vice president — with Biden in attendance. The tribute is the brainchild of Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), who now holds the Senate seat that Biden occupied for more than three decades. Coons first approached Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) with the idea in August, and McConnell — who's worked closely with Biden in the past, including negotiating a way for Congress to extricate itself from the fiscal cliff crisis in late 2012 — was quickly on board, Coons said.“I don’t think we’re going to have a public life without Joe Biden,” Coons said in an interview Monday. “I am very hopeful that he will remain a very strong, very effective voice in Washington, internationally and in Delaware. I view it as a celebration of his next chapter in public service.”The hour-long tribute is scheduled for Dec. 7 in the afternoon. Coons will kick it off, and other top senators will follow with their own accolades for Biden — including McConnell, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.).“The leader agreed with it and is helping to make it happen,” McConnell spokesman Don Stewart said.Biden spokeswoman Meghan Dubyak confirmed that the vice president indeed plans to attend the tribute.Though his name has been batted around for various political jobs, including the next chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Biden has said he plans to focus on initiatives to battle cancer once he leaves office. His son, Beau Biden, died from brain cancer last year. “He has made an enormous difference already in fighting for cures for cancer, in supporting state and local law enforcement and in working in a bipartisan way to push some very important issues internationally and domestically,” Coons said. “But frankly, he also has a deserved reputation for being an incredibly loyal friend and for being a very straight-talking, common-sense senator.”

12 ноября 2016, 15:41

The Black Swan President

Donald Trump is the biggest unknown ever to take control of the White House. What’s the worst-case scenario? The best? As the country waits to find out, Politico Magazine asked 17 experts to game out a Trump presidency.

08 ноября 2016, 21:38

Here's How Stocks Have Performed on Recent Election Days

Election Day 2016 is finally here, and stocks are gaining. In an effort to sniff out a pattern, we also took a look at the performance of the markets on other recent Election Days.

07 ноября 2016, 17:41

Этот безумный безумный финансовый мир либо история одного грааля))

Скоро уже почти как пять лет на рынке из месяца в месяц из года в год происходит одно и тоже событие! Это событие можно смело на языке трейдеров назвать популярным словом паттерн, торговая система либо вовсе Грааль! Тот самый, который многим не дает покоя! Его даже можно было бы назвать строкой из известной песни Слепаков: а что бл… ь если нет..? Как же он выглядит? Рассмотрим на примере знакомого и показательного актива, на индексе широкого рынка SP500! На стороне этого рынка давно и не безуспешно играют три очень влиятельных игрока хеджера: ФРС, ЕЦБ, Банк Японии! Благодаря им этот актив имеет устойчивый восходящий тренд! Однако безоткатный рост это слишком примитивно поэтому для публики периодически устраивают шоу! За это время на сцене отметились следующие персонажи-события: понижение инвест рейтинга США, фискальный обрыв(разрыв), проблемы греческих долгов и банков, игры с госдолгом США, Брексит в конце концов и.т.д! И каждый раз картина маслом. За месяц до события ИКС «независимыми и беспристрастными» СМИ начинается, вперемешку с истерией, нагнетание страха. Рынки под натиском авторитетных аналитиков корректируются в среднем на 5% в ожидание армагедона! Но в самый ответственный момент появляется  герой в маске и всех спасает) После чего рынки не только возвращаются к точке начала коррекции, но и обновляя хаи идут выше, хотя принципиально ничего не изменилось. И так из года в год, что могло вам принести тысячи, сотни и даже миллионов долларов! Вот и сейчас история повторяется! На этот раз инфоповодом стало избрание президента США, даже ФБР не удержалось и включилось в игру) Как же долго это будет продолжаться? Очевидно до тех пор пока сохраняется статус кво! Так будет наверное и в это раз ведь имя будущего президента-женщины уже и так все знают! Вот только хочется спросить: а Что Бля… ь Если Нет???

26 октября 2016, 15:59

The Business of Business Jets

Periodically in the course of the various projects we're developing, we come across data that's interesting in and of itself. Today, that data is about the business of business jets, in which we're looking at the number of new business jets manufactured in the United States in the years from 2002 through the present. When new, business jets can carry price tags of anywhere between $3 million and $65 million, where at the typical sales price of $20 million for a midsize business jet, a change of just 50 sales in a single year can represent a billion dollar swing in the economy. That makes the 55% decline in the industry that occurred in 2009 and 2010 an especially dramatic event. Lagging behind the official starting and ending dates of the Great Recession, the U.S. business jet industry effectively shrank its annual production by somewhere in the ballpark of $10 billion. Something similar happened on a considerably smaller scale between 2012 and 2013, where the total number of business jets made in the USA fell by 10%. That microrecession directly led to Hawker Beechcraft's bankruptcy, where the company discontinued making business jets altogether as part of its subsequent reorganization. The company today is owned by Textron (NYSE: TXT), the parent company of Cessna, which manufactures a line of small to mid-size business jets. Cessna's production was also hammered during the Great Recession, like all manufacturers, and uniquely between 2012 and 2013. Sales of business jets were expected to improve in 2013 after being hit last year by fears of a "fiscal cliff". However, mandatory U.S. government spending cuts have made small business owners - Cessna's main customers - cautious about big purchases. "There's rumored money sitting on the sidelines, waiting for clarity in the economy," said Jens Hennig, vice-president of operations at General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA). Global shipments of business jets fell 4 percent to 283 aircraft in the first half of 2013, according to GAMA, which represents more than 50 fixed-wing aviation aircraft makers, including Cessna. Part of that negative business climate was directly generated by President Obama, who specifically targeted the buyers of business jets for criticism during his first term and also during the 2012 presidential debates. President Obama also proposed the budget sequester that produced the cuts in federal government spending cited by small business leaders as a leading reason for why they put off acquiring business jets during this time. The only U.S. business jet manufacture to gain market share during this time was Gulfstream, a wholly owned subsidiary of General Dynamics (NYSE: GD), thanks largely to the introduction of two new models in late 2012, the G280 and the G650, the latter of which opened up a new niche in the business jet market: large-cabin executive jets. These new planes would fall in between the mid-size cabin aircraft manufactured by Cessna and Boeing's converted commercial transport aircraft, and proved especially popular with global customers, particularly in the Middle East. Flashing forward to 2016 however, reports indicate that the market for Gulfstream's large-cabin business jets has begun slipping compared to previous years, while Canada's Bombardier, which manufactures Learjets and its Challenger 300/350 model in the United States, has seen sales drop by nearly one third. At the same time, Cessna's sales are projected to rise during the year, thanks in part to new models it has begun producing. And then, there's Boeing, whose business jet business represents a small fraction of its overall sales, which are pretty stable from year to year at a very low number. ReferencesGeneral Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA). General Aviation 2000 Statistical Databook. Table 1.4a. Worldwide Business Jet Shipments by Manufacturer (2002-2015). [PDF Document]. 29 March 2016.

03 октября 2016, 22:15

How To Win At The "Beat The Wall Street Estimate" Game

Submitted by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com, Over the weekend, I got a few tweets talking about some technical analysis currently being passed around the Internet suggesting the S&P 500 is about to make a significant move towards 2400. While anything is certainly possible, the problem with the analysis is the lack of fundamental underpinnings to support such a move higher, namely, economic growth and corporate profitability. Of course, the issue ultimately comes down to valuations. At a price of 2400, based on current earnings per share of $86.92, the market would be trading at the second highest level of valuations in history with a P/E of 27.61. However, as I was tweeted yesterday morning: @LanceRoberts @JLyonsFundMgmt what about 129-133$ forward earnings est? — Paolo Riccelli (@paolo_riccelli) October 2, 2016   Let’s assume for a moment the $133 EPS estimate was accurate. This would put the forward P/E ratio at just 18x earnings – still well above the long-term historical average P/E of 15. However, in Paolo’s attempt to justify the bullish meme, the forward earnings estimate is no longer $133/share but, according to S&P, just $122.15 through the end of 2017. IF we assume those estimates are correct, now the forward P/E rises to 19.64x earnings. Certainly not cheap.  But even those estimates are a likely a fantasy. Throughout history, earnings are consistently overstated by roughly 33%. This overstatement of estimates can be clearly seen in the chart below. If we held Wall Street analysts to their estimates at the beginning of this year, much less the beginning of the previous quarter, 100% of companies would have missed earnings during the second quarter of this year. In fact, in just the past three months, analysts have now ratcheted down their estimates for the third quarter to their lowest levels yet. In other words, in order for companies to win the “beat the estimate game,” they need the bar lowered far enough to ensure they can clear it. The problem is actually worse than just Wall Street analysts consistently lowering earnings estimates to make company reports look better, corporations themselves have been using four primary tools to boost earnings per share as well.   Inherent Conflict Of Interest There is an inherent conflict between Wall Street, corporate executives, and individual investors. Today, more than ever, corporate executives are compensated by stock options, and other stock-based compensation, which is tied to rising stock prices. There are billions at stake and the game of “beat the Wall Street estimate” is critical in keeping corporate stock prices elevated. Unfortunately, this leads to a wide variety of gimmicks to boost bottom line profitability which is not necessarily in the best interest of long-term profitability or shareholders. In a study by Lawrence Brown, Andrew Call, Michael Clement and Nathan Sharp it is clear that Wall Street analysts are clearly not that interested in your financial well-being. The study surveyed analysts from the major Wall Street firms to try and understand what went on behind closed doors when research reports were being put together. In an interview with the researchers John Reeves and Llan Moscovitz wrote: “Countless studies have shown that the forecasts and stock recommendations of sell-side analysts are of questionable value to investors. As it turns out, Wall Street sell-side analysts aren’t primarily interested in making accurate stock picks and earnings forecasts. Despite the attention lavished on their forecasts and recommendations, predictive accuracy just isn’t their main job.” The chart below is from the survey conducted by the researchers which show the main factors that play into analysts compensation. It is quite clear that what analysts are “paid” to do is quite different than  what retail investors “think” they do. “Sharp and Call told us that ordinary investors, who may be relying on analysts’ stock recommendations to make decisions, need to know that accuracy in these areas is ‘not a priority.’   ‘The part to me that’s shocking about the industry is that I came into the industry thinking [success] would be based on how well my stock picks do. But a lot of it ends up being ‘What are your broker votes?’   A ‘broker vote’ is an internal process whereby clients of the sell-side analysts’ firms assess the value of their research and decide which firms’ services they wish to buy. This process is crucial to analysts because good broker votes result in revenue for their firm. One analyst noted that broker votes ‘directly impact my compensation and directly impact the compensation of my firm.'” The question really becomes then “If the retail client is not the focus of the firm then who is?”  The survey table below clearly answers that question. Not surprisingly you are at the bottom of the list. The incestuous relationship between companies, institutional clients, and Wall Street is the root cause of the ongoing problems within the financial system. It is a closed loop that is portrayed to be a fair and functional system; however, in reality, it has become a “money grab” that has corrupted not only the system but the regulatory agencies that are supposed to oversee it. However, the analysts are only one-half of the equation, the other half comes from the outright manipulations of earnings per share by corporations to obfuscate weak revenue growth.   How Do They Do It As shown below, since 2009, the reported earnings per share of corporations, the bottom line of the income statement, have increased by a total of 211% which is the sharpest, post-recession, increase in reported EPS in history. However, at the same time, reported sales per share, which is what happens at the top line of the income statement, has only risen by a marginal 28% during the same period. In order for profitability to surge, despite rather weak revenue growth, corporations have resorted to four primary weapons:  wage reduction, productivity increases, labor suppression and stock buybacks. The problem is that each of these tools creates a mirage of corporate profitability. Furthermore, as I will discuss below, each has a negative impact on investors and/or the economy. Stock Buybacks Create An Illusion Of Profitability One of the primary tools used by businesses to increase profitability has been through the heavy use of stock buybacks. The chart below shows outstanding shares as compared to the difference between operating earnings on a per/share basis before and after buybacks. The problem with this, of course, is that stock buybacks create an illusion of profitability. If a company earns $0.90 per share and has one million shares outstanding – reducing those shares to 900,000 will increase earnings per share to $1.00. No additional revenue was created, no more product was sold, it is simply accounting magic. Such activities do not spur economic growth or generate real wealth for shareholders.   Working For Two Since the end of the financial crisis, corporations have been able to markedly boost profitability through increases in productivity. In any business, the highest single expense is the cost of labor which includes benefits like health care costs which have been surging since the onset of the Affordable Care Act. Therefore, increases in productivity can reduce the need for employment. The first chart below shows non-farm business sector output (ie productivity) as compared to the employment to population ratio. As productivity increases the need for employment is reduced. Automated answering systems have been used to replace receptionists, automated billing systems, outsourced help desks, etc. have allowed for lower head counts for businesses while increasing output per person. Higher output, and lower costs have led to the highest profit per employee in history as shown in the chart below. Note: It is worth noting increases in the wages/profits ratio has been a good leading indicator of the onset of recessions. Just sayin’.   What? You Want A Raise? While increasing productivity will increase profitability – a large and available labor pool, which creates competition for existing jobs, keeps wages suppressed. Suppressed wage growth, combined with increases in productivity have created massive profitability for businesses. The chart below shows average hourly earnings which remain well below the recession peak. The spike in 2012, is deceiving because the entirety of the increase came in the 4th quarter as corporations panicked prior to the “Fiscal Cliff.” After that one-time effect passed wages once again fell going into 2015. However, beginning in 2015 the impact of higher health care costs began to set in and as companies reached the limit of employee reductions, wages were forced to increase. With profitability now under pressure, it is unlikely that we will see any significant increases in compensation in the near term particularly as real unemployment remains elevated.  This does not support the economic recovery story.    Sorry, We Aren’t Hiring Full-Time The reason that I state the real unemployment remains elevated is that despite increases in employment in recent months it has been a function of population growth rather than an improved outlooks by businesses. The issue of population growth is ignored by most analysts and economists when discussing employment, but should not be. As I discussed in “Why Baby Boomers Can’t Retire:” “Recent employment increases, while encouraging, have been little more than a function of population growth. As the population grows, incremental demand increases caused by that increase in population will create employment needs in areas most impacted by that population growth. This is why job formation has been primarily focused in retail, service and hospitality areas.” In other words, based on population growth, there has ACTUALLY been a NEGATIVE growth rate in employment of nearly 5-million individuals. In order to keep costs minimized businesses have resorted to temporary hires rather than full-time employment which incurs additional costs of benefits and healthcare. The expectation is that temporary workers will eventually become full-time employees, however, with the impact of higher healthcare costs due to the Affordable Care Act, temporary hires may be the new normal. The chart below shows full-time employment relative to the population. With full-time employment still near levels normally associated with recessions, it shows that businesses remain focused on the cheapest cost of labor possible. The chart above also shows jobless claims which have been steadily falling since the peak of the crisis. This is due to “labor hoarding” where businesses have literally run out of employees to terminate or fire. However, just because fewer people are being terminated it does not mean that greater levels of full-time employment are being created which is what is needed to create sustainable organic economic growth.   If You Can’t Make It, Fake It? There is no doubt that corporate profitability has surged from the recessionary lows.  However, if I am correct in my assessment, then the recent downturn in corporate profitability may be more than just due to an economic “soft patch.”  The problem with cost cutting, wage suppression, labor hoarding and stock buybacks, along with a myriad of accounting gimmicks, is that there is a finite limit to their effectiveness. More importantly, Wall Street knows this already and it should not come as no surprise that companies manipulate bottom line earnings. By utilizing “cookie-jar” reserves, heavy use of accruals, and other accounting instruments they can either flatter, or depress, earnings. “The tricks are well-known: A difficult quarter can be made easier by releasing reserves set aside for a rainy day or recognizing revenues before sales are made, while a good quarter is often the time to hide a big “restructuring charge” that would otherwise stand out like a sore thumb.   What is more surprising though is CFOs’ belief that these practices leave a significant mark on companies’ reported profits and losses. When asked about the magnitude of the earnings misrepresentation, the study’s respondents said it was around 10% of earnings per share.“ As I stated at the beginning, the reason that companies do this is simple: stock-based compensation. Today, more than ever, many corporate executives have a large percentage of their compensation tied to company stock performance. A “miss” of Wall Street expectations can lead to a large penalty in the companies stock price. As shown in the table, it is not surprising to see that 93% of the respondents pointed to “influence on stock price” and“outside pressure” as the reason for manipulating earnings figures. Note: For fundamental investors this manipulation of earnings skews valuation analysis particularly with respect to P/E’s, EV/EBITDA, PEG, etc. Revenues, which are harder to adjust, may provide truer measures of valuation such as P/SALES and EV/SALES. So, as we head into the third quarter earnings season, it is important to be aware of what is real, and what isn’t. To win the “Beat The Estimate Game” focus on the quality, rather than the quantity, of earnings. As was pointed out previously by the WSJ: “First and foremost, investors should keep an eye on cash flow: Strong earnings when cash flow deteriorates may be a sign of trouble. The advantage of this approach is that, unlike some of the other warning signs, it is easily measurable, arming the investors and analysts who do their homework with strong ammunition against management.   Secondly, stark deviations from the earnings recorded by the company’s peers should also set off alarm bells, as should weird jumps or falls in reserves.   The other potential problem areas are more subjective and more difficult to detect. When, for example, the chief financial officers urge stakeholders to be wary of ‘too smooth or too consistent’ profits or ‘frequent changes in accounting policies,’ they are asking them to look at variables that don’t necessarily point at earnings (mis)management.” As the quarterly ritual of the earnings season approaches, executives and investors would do well to remember the words of the then-chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission Arthur Levitt in a 1998 speech entitled “The Numbers Game.” “While the temptations are great, and the pressures strong, illusions in numbers are only that—ephemeral, and ultimately self-destructive.” Couldn’t have said it better myself.

29 сентября 2013, 13:20

Да придёт Shutdown ... )

Угроза прекращения работы правительства США из-за острых разногласий между демократической администрацией президента Барака Обамы и республиканской оппозицией в Конгрессе сегодня стала вполне реальной. Палата представителей на своем заседании, начавшемся в субботу днем и затянувшемся за полночь, приняла новый вариант резолюции о временном финансировании федеральных министерств и ведомств, однако лидеры сената сообщили, что рассматривать его не будут. Белый дом также заявил, что такой документ ему не подходит и "президент наложит на него вето". ... В неоплачиваемые отпуска будут отправлены 800 тыс из 2,1 млн федеральных служащих, прекратится прием новых заявок на выплаты по социальному страхованию, будет остановлена господдержка ипотечных кредитов и займов малому бизнесу, закроются национальные парки и музеи. http://www.itar-tass.com/c16/895136.html _____________ Судя по последним решениям республиканцев (они снова проголосовали за продление финансирования, но теперь с условием отсрочки медреформы на год) Shutdown правительства практически неизбежен. Десократам в Сенате и Обами на принятие решения остается только понедельник. Поддержать законопроект республиканцев - значит отказаться от медреформы (где год, там и два, бюджетные споры будут каждый год), на возврат законопроекта обратно в Палату представителей Конгресса и повторные голосования времени практически не остается. Демократы в Сенате и Обама поддержать отсрочку реформы на год не могут - для них это полный фиаско, проще выключить правительство и обвинить во всем республиканцев. Shutdown правительства уже был в 1995-1996, тогда это произошло дважды: с 14 по 19 ноября 1995г. и с 19 декабря 1995г. по 6 января 1996 года. А всего за с 1976 года это происходило 17 раз, особенно активно при Картере в 1977-1979 годах но после 1980 года отключения были на 1-3 дня. Более вероятно, что shutdown приведет к некоторому падению ставок госбондов (как это было в 1995), росту доллара?... возможно незначительной коррекции фондовых индексов. Голдман насчитал замедление роста в 4 квартале на уровне 1% ВВП, что вполне реалистично, если shutdown протянется на несколько недель, но это скорее временный эффект. ФРС, видимо, под этим соусом может отодвинуть сворачивание QE3 ) Намного более важным является не shutdown, а решение о лимите госдолга, на счетах Минфина $18.5 млрд. на 26 сентября - это в 3-4 раза меньше, чем в предыдущие годы на ту же дату, учитывая налоговые поступления и расходы Минфин ожидает того, что деньги закончатся к 17 октября, shutdown вряд ли сможет сильно отодвинуть эту дату, но "критическая ситуация", может заставить республиканцев быть более сговорчивыми по лимиту госдолга, как и демократов (сдавать позиции намного проще, когда "ужас-ужас"). Что в итоге: ФРС получит повод для политики помягче, политики получат пинок для "поиска компромисса", рынки потрясет, ну и все получат возможность найти крайнего в слабом росте экономики ). P.S.: Если ФРС стимулирует экономику через повышение доступности кредита и низкие ставки, то почему: темпы роста кредита с начала запуска программы упали, ставки выше чем до запуска ). Рост производства, розницы, доходов населения, инфляции... уровень занятости - ниже? Зато выше фондовые индексы и цены на дома. ДОП.: Сенат вернул законопроект обратно, республиканцы планируют повторить заход ) 

01 марта 2013, 21:12

Конгресс и Белый дом не договорились по секвестру

Фото: EPA Конгресс и администрация США не смогли договориться по вопросу предотвращения секвестра бюджета. В результате США потеряют около 750 тысяч рабочих мест. Президент США Барак Обама обвинил республиканцев в сложившейся ситуации Обновлено в 21:46 мск "Эти сокращения ударят по экономике. Многие, сотни тысяч американцев, почувствуют их. Пограничная служба, Пентагон, ФБР и многие другие силовые ведомства столкнутся с сокращением финансирования и увольнениями. По расчетам экономистов, США потеряют около 750 тысяч рабочих мест", - сказал Обама, выступая в Белом доме. Президент обвинил республиканцев в том, что они довели дело до секвестра федерального бюджета. "Это произошло потому, что такой выбор сделали республиканцы в Конгрессе", - заявил он. - Обама вновь предложил отложить секвестр бюджета По словам Обамы, администрация США в ближайшие дни начнет разработку новой экономической стратегии, которая позволила бы нивелировать последствия секвестра и сгладить ущерб американской экономике. "В конгрессе есть группа парламентариев, которая обеспокоена оздоровлением экономики. В ней есть и республиканцы, и демократы. В ближайшие дни и недели мы (администрация США) свяжемся с этой группой, начнем консультации и выработку плана действий. Я намерен интенсифицировать этот процесс", - сказал Обама, выступая в Белом доме. Он повторил, что намерен сделать все, чтобы экономический ущерб от секвестра оказался как можно меньшим. При этом, по словам президента, основной удар от сокращения бюджетных расходов придется на силовые структуры, малый бизнес и средний класс. "Но есть и хорошие новости. Американский народ очень сильный и пройдет через все трудности", - отметил президент. - Конгресс США не смог отвести от национальной экономики угрозу секвестра Спикер палаты представителей Джон Бейнер по итогам встречи также заявил, что переговоры Обамы с лидерами Конгресса не принесли желаемых результатов. Он исключил возможность повышения налогов, заметив, что сейчас надо сконцентрировать внимание на проблеме сокращения расходов. "Дискуссия по поводу пополнения казны за счет доходов, на мой взгляд, завершена. Речь идет о решении проблемы, связанной с расходами", - сказал лидер республиканцев. В пятницу Обама встречался с лидерами обеих палат конгресса, чтобы обсудить меры по предотвращению секвестра. От этой встречи администрация ожидала договоренностей о предотвращении секвестра или о переносе сроков его начала. Однако длившиеся около часа переговоры не принесли результатов. Как объявил ранее Белый дом, президент США Барак Обама планирует подписать указ о переходе правительства на особый режим работы в связи с секвестром федерального бюджета. Речь идет о принудительном сокращении расходных статей федерального бюджета на общую сумму 85 миллиардов долларов. Члены Конгресса уже отклонили два законопроекта, которые могли если не устранить, то хотя бы смягчить последствия этого процесса, чреватого осложнением ситуации не только в Соединенных Штатах, но и в других странах. - Секвестр бюджета США. "Рынки ведут себя как испуганные зайцы" Правительство США разработало экстренные планы на случай секвестра, которые предусматривают сокращение большинства федеральных программ и частичное сворачивание работы в государственных ведомствах. Угроза секвестра была специально создана Белым домом и Конгрессом в 2011 году, чтобы у обеих ветвей власти появился мощный стимул для наведения порядка в национальных финансах. Однако в прошлом году они так и не сумели прийти к окончательному компромиссу по бюджету и налогам. В результате падение страны с "финансового обрыва" было предотвращено в самый последний момент лишь на основе временной договоренности, срок действия которой истекает сегодня. В результате секвестра на 46 миллиардов долларов будут сокращены расходы на оборонные нужды, на 28,7 миллиардов долларов - ассигнования на различные внутренние проекты, почти на 10 миллиардов долларов - финансирование программ медицинского страхования. - США вернут авианосцы в порты в случае секвестра бюджета В одном только Вашингтоне будет отправлено в неоплачиваемые отпуска свыше 13 тысяч гражданских служащих министерства обороны США. В штате Вирджиния это число составит 90 тысяч человек. Кроме того, властям придется приостановить обслуживание 11 военных кораблей, базирующихся на базе ВМС США в Норфолке (штат Вирджиния), а сокращение расходов на расположенные в этом штате базы американских ВВС и Сухопутных войск составит в общей сложности свыше 150 миллионов долларов. По материалам РИА Новости и ИТАР-ТАСС.

17 января 2013, 12:54

Демократы США требуют отказаться от потолка госдолга

Представители Демократической партии подготовили и представили законопроект об отмене потолка государственного долга США, сообщает Associated Press.Америка отступила от "финансового обрыва", однако за этой угрозой скрывалась новая, куда более серьезная. Технически потолок госдолга США был достигнут еще 31 декабря. Подобный шаг они объясняют тем, что "планка" госдолга не выполняет своей задачи сдерживания уровня расходов. Более того, данный инструмент не имеет практического применения и определяется в произвольном порядке.Аналогичной позиции придерживается глава ФРС Бен Бернанке, который также предлагал отказаться от данного механизма."Я думаю, было бы хорошо, если бы у нас не было этого", - заявил Бернанке, выступая в Университете Мичигана.В то же время он находит шансы того, что Конгресс откажется от постоянного повышения, минимальными.Предельно допустимый уровень государственного долга США на 31 декабря прошлого года составляет $16,394 млрд. До тех пор пока верхняя граница не будет повышена, Казначейство не может занимать сверх этой суммы, а это необходимо, для того чтобы расплатиться по всем финансовым обязательствам страны.В то же время основной причиной возникновения необходимости отказа от "потолка" могло стать использование этого инструмента представителями Республиканской партии как средства политического "шантажа" своих оппонентов. Столь резкие действия демократов связаны с ранее прозвучавшим заявлением республиканцев, которые сообщили, что намерены не уступать демократам и требовать для себя условий - лимит госдолга будет повышен только в обмен на сокращение расходов. Без этого условия республиканцы не будут голосовать за повышение лимита и даже готовы допустить технический дефолт.Если республиканцы продолжат настаивать на своей позиции, то они угрожают превратить Америку в самого крупного неплательщика в мире, что, естественно, будет усиливать давление на них со стороны общества.Предстоящая схватка между республиканцами и демократам будет очень тяжелой, и споры об увеличении налогов перед Рождеством сейчас кажутся детской игрой. Все значило, что ситуация с "фискальным обрывом" закончится тем, что богатые будут платить больше налогов, а сейчас никто не может предсказать результаты предстоящего боя."Никто не хочет дефолта, но мы не собираемся продолжать предоставлять президенту безграничную кредитную карту", - заявил конгрессмен-консерватор Джейсон Чафетз.Распространено мнение, что Обама и Конгресс в конечном итоге достигнут компромисса по расходам, что позволит повысить лимит госдолга, продолжить финансирование правительства и изменит автоматическое секвестирование расходов на $1,2 трлн до 1 марта. Ссылки по теме Бернанке: от потолка госдолга надо избавиться Обама снова призвал Конгресс увеличить госдолг США могут сэкономить на бюджетниках Проблема здесь в следующем: республиканцы, скорее всего, не пойдут на компромисс при сокращении расходов на $1,2 трлн. Это сокращения, о которых удалось договориться, республиканцы уже считают сделанным делом. Теперь они хотят сократить конкретные программы, а не общий объем расходов. Предполагает немедленное сокращение половины указанных расходов на оборону, а другая половина должна сократиться по остальным программам.У Обамы совершенно другое видение. Белый дом не только хочет, чтобы секвестр решил все проблемы, он хочет заменить некоторые сокращения дополнительным повышением налогов.Позиции Бейнера и Обамы уже не могут быть дальше, чем в вопросе увеличения потолка госдолга. Бейнер требует за доллар, на который будет увеличен госдолг, сокращения расходов на доллар. Это означает, что расходы должны быть дополнительно сокращены на $1 трлн и более, чтобы вопрос о госдолге был решен на длительное время. Обама не пойдет на такое. Он не будет сокращать расходы, и представитель Белого дома заявил, что позиция президента не изменится. Реального компромисса здесь просто не существует, отмечают обе стороны.

03 января 2013, 12:25

Барак Обама отсрочил "фискальный обрыв"

Барак Обама подписал законопроект по предотвращению роста налогов для большей части американского населения и предотвращению "фискального обрыва". Кроме того, подписан законопроект об оборонном бюджете. Ранее документ был одобрен Палатой представителей США и сенатом.Структура "фискального обрыва" Соглашение предусматривает повышение налогов на семьи, чей доход превышает $450 тыс. в год, с 15% до 20%, а также рост размера отчислений в бюджет для граждан, зарабатывающих в год более $400 тыс. Налог на недвижимость от $5 млн увеличится с 35% до 40%, налог на фонд заработной платы вырастет с 4,2% до 6,4%. Сократятся пособия по безработице для нетрудоспособных в течение более чем года. Для тех, кто не работает менее 1 года, размер пособия вырастет."Фискальный обрыв", который предусматривает отмену налоговых льгот, принятых при Джордже Буше, случился уже 1 январе 2013 г., но из-за того, что 1 января было выходным днем, воздействие на экономику было минимальным. Если бы новый закон принять не успели, то количество пособий по безработице сократилось, а государственные расходы резко сократились.Лимит госдолга США Что касается военного бюджета, то Пентагон получит $527,5 млрд, $88,5 млрд пойдут на зарубежные операции, в частности в Афганистане. Еще $17,4 млрд направят на ядерные программы Министерства энергетики США. В результате бюджет на военную отрасль в 2013 г. достигнет $633,4 млрд.Между тем эксперты отмечают, что трудности для Обамы только начинаются, несмотря на целый ряд подписанных соглашений, которые глава государства записал себе в актив. Республиканцы уже пообещали "отыграться" к марту, когда будет обсуждаться вопрос об очередном поднятии "потолка" госдолга США и автоматического секвестра госрасходов. Как известно, республиканцы выступают против этой меры, так как правительству снова придется выходить на долговой рынок ради финансирования бюджетных программ.

02 января 2013, 06:07

Этот, как его там, - "фискальный обрыв"? )

Пора завязывать с активным празднованием НГ, а вспомнить про наших старых друзей на другом континенте. Еще успеем наотдыхаться ))  Клоунада в Конгрессе завершилась в лучших традициях голливудских блокбастеров. Напряжение, накал страстей, кровь и слезы при кульминации и промежуточное решение за несколько секунд до часа X. С этим они нас не подвели. Молодцы, умеют быть предсказуемыми. Другого ждать от них не имело смысла.Второе, в чем еще они не подвели нас, - так это то, что никакого адекватного решения разумеется нет. Одни смятения и непонятнки.  Кто нибудь ждал от них чего то внятного? Я нет. Предусмотрительно я занес в черный список спам фильтра все новости про «фискальный обрыв» вот уже как пол года, т.к. понимал, что не стоит тратить время на пустую болтовню этих клоунов и импотентов. Нет, они не дураки, а весьма образованные люди, но в своей сути лоббисты-клоуны (представители бизнеса) и импотенты (патологически боятся смелых шагов и волевых решений).На самом деле издевательства над мировым сообществом они начали не сейчас. Троллинг был всегда. Я не поленился и решил посмотреть, а какой официальный план правительства США в лице представителей Конгресса США был в 2001 году с проектом до 2012 года?Поверить в это сложно, но 10 лет тому назад они ожидали, что к 2012 году долг США станет почти нулевым, профицит бюджета стабильно растущим, а экономика цветущей.Эпик фейл перед вашими глазамиТеперь вы удивляетесь, почему я занес этих парней в спам фильтр и почему отключаю звук на ТВ, когда выступают конгрессмены?Тем не менее, раз в год, но с официальными документами стоит ознакомиться. У них вновь оптимистичные планы. Смотреть здесь. Эте бредовые прогнозы даже не буду комментировать, а обращу внимание на то, чего же они приняли касаемо налогов?Да, по голливудским традициям, они кинули кость американскому народу. Ведь, как знаете, по фильму Бэтмен, всегда должна быть надежда на лучшее у народа. Только так можно поверить в успех, собрать силы и волю в кулак и раздвигать границы мироздания. Помните, как бэтмен выбирался из тюрьмы по трубе? Однако, так получается пока только в кино.Конгрессмены как бы выступили героями. В новогодний праздник. Народ хотел растрясти богатых и конгрессмены сделали вид, что растрясли.Три ключевых решения:Повышение подоходного налога с 35 до 39.6% для тех, кто имеет годовой доход в 400 тыс долл и 450 тыс при семейном бюджете.Повышение налога с 15% до 20% на прирост капитала и дивиденды при условии годовой выручки выше 400 тыс долларов.Повышение налога с 35% до 40% на сверхэлитную недвижимость ценой выше 5 млн долларов.Сложно сказать, сколько официально людей имеют доход выше 400 тыс баксов. Но я знаю, что выше 250 тыс по данным за 2010 год имеют лишь 1.9% среди рабочей силы в США. Из этого можно предположить, что в 400 тыс попадают меньше 1% или менее 1.5 млн человек. Это обычно те, кто налоги не платит, т.к. имеет более, чем достаточно средств по налоговой оптимизации. Обычно эффективная налоговая ставка для богатых ниже 30% или около нее. Рост оф.ставки до 39.6% вероятно никак не скажется на них. Найдут законные средства по оптимизации налогов.Тем не менее, даже если все будут честно платить, то эффект близок к нулю в масштабах всей экономики. По расчетам Конгресса, в самом лучшем случае годовой эффект будет примерно 330 млрд (скорее фантастика в стиле профицита бюджета к 2012), хотя если брать налоги для богатых, то не более 62 млрд в год. Всего 62 млрд в год при дефиците 1.25 трлн! Хотя, это первый порыв к тотальному перераспределению с коммунистическим уклоном, которое активно тестируют социалисты во Франции.Просто заморозили ситуацию, оставив все как есть. Документов еще толком нет, окончательного решения нет, ничего короче пока нет. Хотя пытаются народ отвлечь от того, что например, компании показывают свои худшие результаты с 2009 года, а экономика летит в рецессию.Но также подвешенный вопрос относительно payroll tax с возможным ростом с 4.2% до 6.2%, что нивелирует весь якобы положительный эффект от повышения налогов для богатых. С другой стороны сам Бланкфайн был не против роста налога на богатых, что означает лишь одно: элита чувствует, что пахнет керосином. Они устроили тест драйв Греции и прекрасно видят к чему приводит утягивание поясов - погромы и беспредел на улице. Бланкфайн живет рядом с Центральным парком в Нью Йорке в апартаментах за 35 млн и ему не хочется, чтобы его разодрали на клочья голодные американцы по пути из офиса к дому. Это скорее, как необходимость, вынужденная мера. В свои 58 Бланкфайн выглядит лет на 40, денег много, вся жизнь впереди. Представьте, если дубиной по башке получит от случайного прохожего, который на GS в обиде? Какого будет? Мозги можно вышибить. Вероятно,  повышение налогов с 35 до 39.6% - это воля элиты, чем решение конгрессменов. 

05 декабря 2012, 22:19

США: производственная активность сократилась в ожидании fiscal cliff

ISM Manufacturing Index на минимумах июля 2009 г.3 декабря 2012 г. были опубликованы данные по индексу общенациональной производственной активности США, ISM Manufacturing Index, за ноябрь.В прошлом месяце индикатор деловых настроений в промышленности крупнейшей экономики мира зафиксировал значение на уровне 49,5 пункта против 51,7 в октябре, вновь уйдя ниже критического уровня в 50 пунктов. Таким образом, в четырех из последних шести месяцев индикатор деловых настроений оказывался в зоне сокращения. Текущее значение оказалось минимальным с июля 2009 г., когда PMI зафиксировал значение 49,2 пункта.Исторически, значение индикатора ISM Manufacturing (PMI) выше 42,6 пункта сигнализирует о росте экономики США. Таким образом, с учетом последних данных, 42 месяца подряд индекс  PMI подтверждает расширение американской  экономики.Анализ взаимосвязи между PMI и ВВП США указывает на то, что среднее значение PMI с января по ноябрь (51,8) соответствует росту ВВП в пределах 3,1%. В годовом сопоставлении, ноябрьский PMI в 49,5 пункта корреспондирует с годовым ростом экономики в пределах 2,3%.Индекс ISM Manufacturing базируется на ежемесячных исследованиях, проводимых среди выборки отобранных компаний. Это позволяет получить ранние индикаторы того, что реально происходит в экономике, отслеживая такие переменные, как производство, новые заказы, уровень запасов, занятость и цены в промышленных секторах. Значение индикатора выше 50 пунктов означает рост деловой активности в промышленности, ниже – наоборот, замедление. Специалисты института ISM отмечают, что падение среднего значения индекса ISM Manufacturing ниже 42,6 пунктов говорит о сокращении национальной экономики, выше – о ее расширении.Компоненты индекса PMIКомпонента новые заказы в ноябре зафиксировала значение в 50,3 пункта, что на 3,9 п.п. ниже значений октября. Тем не менее, рост в этом важнейшем индикаторе в структуре PMI  длится уже три месяца подряд после трех месяцев сокращения.Параметр выпуск продукции снизился на 1,3 п.п. относительно октября до 53,7 пункта. Рост субиндекса выпуск продукции в районе 51,2 пункта, за длительный период, обычно совпадает с положительной динамике в значении индекса промышленного производства США, который расчитывает Federal Reserve Board.Новые экспортные заказы сокращаются шесть месяцев подряд. Субиндекс занятости упал до минимальных уровней с 2009 г.Новые заказы за вычетом запасовНесмотря на сокращение общенационального индекса деловой активности в промышленности США в ноябре, разница между компонентами новые заказы и запасы осталась положительной и даже выросла (с 4,2 до 5,3 пункта). Безусловно, это является позитивным моментом в отчете PMI.Региональные PMI Manufacturing vs. ISM ManufacturingВ течение двух недель до публикации ISM Manufacturing Index, данные по индексам PMI представляют региональные Федеральные Резервные Банки Нью-Йорка (Empire State), Филадельфии (Philly Fed), Ричмонда (Richmond Fed), Далласа (Dallas Fed) и Канзас-Сити (Kansas City Fed), Чикаго (Chicago),  формирующие около 52,6% ВВП США.Учитывая различия в “весах” каждого региона, можно рассчитать сводный региональный индекс деловой активности в промышленности Соединенных Штатов Америки (Empire+Philly+Richmond+Dallas+Kansas+Chicago PMI Manufacturing). В ноябре ситуация в производственном секторе рассматриваемых регионов незначительно ухудшилась относительно октября. Сводный региональный индекс уже четыре месяца находится ниже 50 пунктов.  В последние месяцы заметно улучшение в региональных индикаторах производственной активности в разрезе по важнейшей компоненте - новые заказы (new orders). По нашим оценкам, в ноябре сводный региональный индикатор новых заказов впервые за последние шесть месяцев пересек рубеж в 50 пунктов.U.S. Economic Surprise Index vs. ISM Manufacturing IndexПоложительная динамика индекса экономического сюрприза (Bloomberg Economic Surprise) в ноябре поспособствовала улучшению ожиданий бизнеса относительно перспектив американской экономики.  Bloomberg Economic Surprise отражает уровень пере- или недооценки экономическими аналитиками трендов бизнес цикла. Элемент сюрприза отражает процентную разницу между прогнозами аналитиков и публикуемыми фактическими данными. Прогнозы аналитиков отслеживаются Bloomberg News и отображаются в терминале Bloomberg. Элементы сюрприза по еженедельным и месячным данным сглаживаются по последним шести месяцам, больший вес присваивается последним вышедшим данным. Элементы сюрприза нормализуются и затем агрегируются.*Индекс сюрприза vs. динамика фондового и долгового рынкаДинамика Bloomberg Economic Surprise Index после 2008 г. показывает высокую корреляцию с динамикой индекса широкого рынка S&P 500 и доходности 10-летних нот США. ISM Manufacturing Index vs. ВВП СШАВажность ISM Manufacturing Index заключается в том, что индикатор публикуется одним из первых среди серии данных по национальному производственному сектору США. Несмотря на то, что общий вклад промышленного сектора в ВВП США составляет около 19,2% (сектора услуг - 79,6%, сельского хозяйства - 1,2%), ситуация в данном сегменте экономики традиционно выступает в качестве опережающего показателя.Большинство экономистов отмечает, что слабая статистика по ISM Manufacturing в ноябре является отражением настороженности бизнеса по вопросу “фискального обрыва” (одновременного автоматического сокращения госрасходов и повышения налогов c января 2013 г.), предотвращение которого станет ключевым вопросом для Конгресса США в декабре 2012 г. Вопрос fiscal cliff действительно заслуживает пристального внимания, так как разногласия по данному вопросу существуют не только между республиканцами и демократами, но и внутри самих партий.