Share This

Showing posts with label Financial services. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Financial services. Show all posts

Friday 7 October 2011

Why 'Occupy Wall Street'? Job growth fails to dent US unemployment rate!


Steve Denning

Why 'Occupy Wall Street'?

Steve Denning, Contributor
RADICAL MANAGEMENT: Rethinking leadership and innovation

Esperanza Casco (C) who's home in Long Beach w...Image by AFP/Getty Images via @daylife

For people wondering why the ‘Occupy Wall Street’ movement is spreading across the country, an article earlier this year in  Bloomberg by Danielle Kucera and Christine Harper sheds some light. It discusses the continuing disconnect between the amount of pay in finance and the value generated to society:

Wall Street traders still earn much more than brain surgeons. An oil trader with 10 years in the business is likely to earn at least $1 million this year, while a neurosurgeon with similar time on the job makes less than $600,000, recruiters estimated.

After a decade of deal-making, merger bankers take home about $2 million, more than 10 times what a similarly seasoned cancer researcher gets.

“I don’t think it’s healthy for the economy to be this skewed,” said Stephen Rose, a professor at Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce. “I believe there’s some sort of connection between value added to the economy and pay. Everyone is losing sight of any fundamentals.”

Yet many bankers think they’re not paid enough


For those in middle class finding it difficult to make ends meet or for recent college graduates struggling to find a decent job, the pay numbers are truly eye-popping.

In the first three quarters of 2010, eight of Wall Street’s largest banks set aside about $130 billion for compensation and benefits, enough to pay each worker more than $121,000 for nine months of work. That’s up from the same period four years earlier — before the crisis — when the lenders set aside a total of $113 billion, or enough to pay an average $114,400 to each worker.

Calculated in dollars, average pay per employee has risen at Bank of America Corp. [BAC] Citigroup Inc. [C], Credit Suisse Group AG [CSGN] and UBS AG [UBS]and declined at Deutsche Bank AG [DBK], Goldman Sachs Group Inc. [GS], JPMorgan Chase [JPM] and Morgan Stanley [MS] since the same period in 2006.

“The bottom line is all the people in investment  banking understand that they work harder and are under more stress,” said Jeanne Branthover, a managing director at Wall Street recruitment firm Boyden Global Executive Search. “Many don’t think they’re paid enough.”



What is the basis for these financial rewards?


John Cassidy, writing in The New Yorker in an article entitled What Good Is Wall Street? asked a banker how he and his co-workers felt about making loads of money when much of the country was struggling.

“A lot of people don’t care about it or think about it,” he replied. “They say, it’s a market, it’s still open, and I’ll sell my labor for as much as I can until nobody wants to buy it.” But you, I asked, what do you think? “I tend to think we do create value,” he said. “It’s not a productive value in a very visible sense, like finding a cure for cancer. We’re middlemen. We bring together two sides of a deal. That’s not a very elevated thing, but I can’t think of any elevated economy that doesn’t need middlemen.”

The [banker] is right: Wall Street bankers create some economic value. But do they create enough of it to justify the rewards they reap? In the first nine months of 2010, the big six banks cleared more than thirty-five billion dollars in profits.

It wasn’t always this way


It hasn’t always been this way. Cassidy notes that from around 1940 to 1980 things were different.

Economic historians refer to [this as] a period of “financial repression,” during which regulators and policymakers, reflecting public suspicion of Wall Street, restrained the growth of the banking sector. They placed limits on interest rates, prohibited deposit-taking institutions from issuing securities, and, by preventing financial institutions from merging with one another, kept most of them relatively small. During this period, major financial crises were conspicuously absent, while capital investment, productivity, and wages grew at rates that lifted tens of millions of working Americans into the middle class.

Banking of course wasn’t the only factor. This was a period when oligopolies were in charge of the marketplace and could charge pretty much what they wanted, even for products that weren’t particularly good. So they could afford to offer life-time employment with good salaries.

Since the early nineteen-eighties, by contrast, financial blowups have proliferated and living standards have stagnated. Is this coincidence?

For a long time, economists and policymakers have accepted the financial industry’s appraisal of its own worth, ignoring the market failures and other pathologies that plague it. Even after all that has happened, there is a tendency in Congress and the White House to defer to Wall Street because what happens there, befuddling as it may be to outsiders, is essential to the country’s prosperity. Finally, dissidents are questioning this narrative. “There was a presumption that financial innovation is socially valuable,” [a critic] said to me. “The first thing I discovered was that it wasn’t backed by any empirical evidence. There’s almost none.”

True, but banking wasn’t the only factor. This was also a period in which the big companies that used to be in charge of the marketplace, found themselves struggling to cope with global competition and the new power of the customer and could no longer offer life-time employment at high salaries.

One might have hoped that the banks would have provided an element of stability in a turbulent period. As it turned out, the net effect of the financial sector has been to aggravate the instability.

Slum lords in pin-striped suits


The case for bankers, if any, rests on the argument that their activities grow the economic pie. However, most of the income comes from extracting rents in a zero-sum game. Cassidy quotes Gerald Epstein, an economist at the University of Massachusetts:

These types of things don’t add to the pie. They redistribute it—often from taxpayers to banks and other financial institutions.

Cassidy’s overall take? He cites with approval Lord Adair Turner, the chairman of Britain’s top financial watchdog, the Financial Services Authority, who has described much of what happens on Wall Street and in other financial centers as “socially useless activity”:

Many people in the City and on Wall Street are the financial equivalent of slumlords or toll collectors in pin-striped suits. If they retired to their beach houses en masse, the rest of the economy would be fine, or perhaps even healthier.
_________________
Steve Denning’s most recent book is: The Leader’s Guide to Radical Management (Jossey-Bass, 2010).

Follow Steve Denning on Twitter @stevedenning

And join the Jossey-Bass online conference webinar”: Sep 22-Oct 20, 2011. My session is on Thursday October 13 at noon ET. To register, go here and use discount code 

Newscribe : get free news in real time 


Job growth fails to dent US unemployment rate

Economy created 103,000 new jobs in September, but unemployment remained high at 9.1 per cent.
Al Jazeera and agencies
Frustrated with the ailing economy, protesters have staged #Occupy rallies in over 500 American cities [Getty]

The US economy created 103,000 jobs in September, the labour department has reported, a much stronger figure than expected but not enough to lower the unemployment rate.

Economists had expected Friday's report to say that the economy only replaced 60,000 jobs in September.
The private sector accounted for all of the the gains, which were boosted in part by the return of 45,000 telecommunications workers who had been on strike in August.

"Job gains occurred in professional and business services, health care, and construction. Government employment continued to trend down," the labour department said.

Meanwhile, the unemployment rate was still stagnant at 9.1 per cent for the third straight month in September.

For African-Americans, the unemployment rate is 16.7 per cent - the highest it has been in 27 years and double the rate of unemployed whites.

Al Jazeera's Patty Culhane, reporting from Washington, explained that the number of unemployed and under-employed Americans is in the millions.

"There are still 14 million Americans who aren't working today, even though they'd love to have a job," she said.

"Beyond that, there are something like six million that have been unemployed for more than six months. That is a unique feature of this recession - how long people are staying out of work."

She said there are another nine million Americans "who are working part-time jobs because, quite frankly, that's the only job they can find".

Growing frustration

With the underlying data still dire, Friday's news is unlikely to dampen President Barack Obama's calls for congress to pass a $447bn jobs bill- which he says could create 1.9mn new jobs.

In depth coverage of US financial crisis protests
He said on Thursday said that America's growing #Occupy protest movement reflected people's frustration with the American financial system and the country's declining economy.

"I think people are frustrated, and the protesters are giving voice to a more broad-based frustration about how our financial system works," he said at the White House.

Republicans, who oppose Obama's jobs bill, said the latest jobs figures were another indication of Obama's mismanagement of the economy.

"There were far too few jobs created this month, which shows the need to spend less time making campaign style speeches and more time trying to work together to identify policies that we both can agree will create an environment for job creation," Eric Cantor, the House of Representatives majority, leader said.

Al Jazeera's Culhane said that Obama is playing "campaign politics" by "going all around the country saying blame the republicans".

But, she points out, "no US president in recent history has ever won a second term with unemployment anything close to this high".

 Newscribe : get free news in real time

Thursday 29 September 2011

Think Twice About Paying Off Your Mortgage, Retirees!





Retirees: Think Twice About Paying Off Your Mortgage


NEW YORK (CNBC) -- The countdown to retirement is on for millions of baby boomers and, thanks to a lifetime of diligent saving, some have amassed enough wealth to pay off their mortgages and live debt free. 


Conventional wisdom says it's best to pay off your mortgage before retirement, but given the low-interest rate environment, and the need to preserve cash in an unstable economy, that strategy is no longer absolute.

"Paying off your house is one goal, but having a zero-mortgage liability is not the answer for everyone," says Jennie Fierstein, a certified financial planner (CFP) in Westborough, Mass. "If you don't have a stream of resources to replenish it, you might do yourself a disservice by taking money out of the bank to pay off your mortgage."

Retirees themselves, it seems, are equally torn as to the most prudent course of action.

According to the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, 41% of U.S. households aged 60 to 69 in 2007 maintained a mortgage. Of these, 51% had sufficient assets to repay their loans.

When it pays to borrow
 
While most financial planners agree that owning your home free and clear during retirement is a worthy goal, Elaine Bedel, with Bedel Financial Consulting in Indianapolis, says there are times when it makes more financial sense to keep your money in the market and use the earnings to pay off your loan.

That's particularly true, she says, if you need to invest (however conservatively) for growth.

"There are a few of my clients who feel like if they don't take the risk to get the growth, they're not going to be able to meet their retirement objectives and live the lifestyle they want," says Bedel. "If you take a big chunk out of your nest egg and the income it was generating was being used to meet your mortgage payments, as well as additional living expenses, that may not be the right thing to do."

CFP Fierstein agrees, noting most retirees are advised to withdraw no more than 4% from their nest egg each year to ensure they won't outlive their income.

Thus, if you take $200,000 out of a $500,000 portfolio to pay off your house, your income based on that 4% drawdown rate would drop to $12,000 from $20,000 per year. (The $20,000, of course, would have had to help pay for your mortgage.)

"It's very dangerous to tie up all your money in your house, because your house is not going to generate
income," says Fierstein. "It's nice security, but you lose flexibility and depending on how conservatively you invest your remaining portfolio you may not have enough income to live on."



What's your rate?

When determining whether to pay off or keep your mortgage, you should also consider your interest rate.

If the average after-tax return on your investments is greater than the after-tax cost of your mortgage, it may make sense to keep your money invested, says Fierstein.

Don't forget to factor in the effect of the mortgage-interest tax deduction.

If you're in the 30% tax bracket and you're able to claim the full deduction, a 5% loan is really only costing you roughly 3.5%.

Thus, you'd only have to earn 4% on your investments to make it worth your while. (Given the low interest-rate environment, however it's nearly impossible to achieve that rate of return on more conservative, fixed-income products such as bonds and certificates of deposit.)

"It's hard to find comparable risk-free investments, so you have to be able to stomach a loss if you want to go that route," says Jean Setzfand, AARP's vice president of financial security. "You can't get a plain vanilla CD anymore, because those rates are too low."

Getting close
 
If you're nearing retirement but haven't yet quit, the case for keeping your mortgage and continuing to invest is more clear -- at least until you part ways with the boss.

According to a 2007 study by the Federal Reserve, directing extra money towards your low-interest mortgage loan at the expense of continued contribution to your 401(k) is a costly mistake.

Organization of the Federal Reserve SystemImage via Wikipedia
Some 38% of the U.S. households that are accelerating their mortgage payments instead of saving in a tax-deferred account, such as a 401(k) or traditional IRA, are making the "wrong choice," it concluded.

For those households, reallocating their savings towards a tax-deferred account instead would yield a mean benefit of 11 cents to 17 cents per dollar, depending on the choice of investment assets in the account. In all, the study notes, "those misallocated savings are costing U.S. households as much as $1.5 billion per year."

When to pay it off

Despite the limited scenarios in which keeping a mortgage during retirement might make sense, AARP's Setzfand and financial planners Bedel and Fierstein agree that most retirees would be better off eliminating debt (however low the interest rate) for the peace of mind it affords.

Money, after all, isn't just about the math.

"I think for the general population our guidance is still the old adage of paying off your mortgage before you retire," says Setzfand of AARP. "There isn't anything as safe as being rid of that mortgage and that burden before you hit a period of your life where you're not bringing in a paycheck."

Indeed, mortgages consume 20% to 30% of the typical household's fixed expenses.

While some maintain that using savings to pay off one's mortgage is unwise, as it leaves you less cash on hand for unexpected expenses, such as medical costs and home repairs, Anthony Webb, the research economist who authored the Center for Retirement Research study, believes that argument lacks validity.

Households "need to consider what they would do if the bad event actually happened," he writes. To wit, how they "would maintain their mortgage payments once their financial assets had been spent."

Remember, too, says Bedel, you can always take out a home equity line of credit on your paid off home, which can satisfy the need for cash reserves.

If you can't pay off your mortgage in full without depleting your nest egg, says Fierstein, at least shoot for a more manageable monthly payment.

"I strongly advocate trying to pay down your mortgage, so when you reach retirement you're not faced with a standard of living crisis," she says. "There is some wisdom to paying off a portion of your mortgage so you have minimal payments and some left over in an emergency fund."

A generation ago, retirement planners often started with the premise of a paid off home, using Social Security, company pensions, and other income sources to help their clients cover living expenses.

Today, however, with interest rates at historic lows and many retirees chasing returns to offset losses incurred during the market meltdown, a mortgage-free retirement is not necessarily the long-term goal.

Deciding what makes sense for you depends on your financial profile, interest rate, and your ability to stomach risk.

-- Written by Shelly K. Schwartz, special to CNBC

Newscribe : get free news in real time

Saturday 3 September 2011

Putting finance to work





 The financial sector must be transformed and serve the real economy

THINK ASIAN By ANDREW SHENG

FINANCE is a service industry, but in the past three decades it seems to have gone its own way.

The functions of the finance sector are to protect property rights for the real sector, improve resource allocation, reduce transaction costs, help manage risks and help discipline borrowers. Financial intermediaries are agents of the real sector. Bankers were traditionally among the most trusted members of the community because they looked after other peoples' money.

The divide between bankers and their customers (the real sector) is epitomised by a recent report which said that the mantra of a large British bank is about “increasing share of wallet of existing customers”. It recalls Woody Allen's joke that the job of his stockbroker was to manage his money until it was all gone. And despite what bankers say, a lot more would have gone between 2007 and 2009 without massive bailouts from the public purse.

The heart of the problem is the principal-agent relationship, where trust is everything. The real sector (the principal) trusts the finance sector to manage its savings, and the banks, as agents, have a fiduciary duty to their customers. Agency business is a big public utility because the intermediary does not take risks, which are those of his customers. All this changed when the drive for short-term profits pushed banks more and more into proprietary trading for their own profits. All this was in the name of capital efficiency, a misnomer for increasing leverage.

In the past 30 years, with growth in technology and financial innovation, finance morphed from a service agent to a self-serving principal that is larger than the real sector itself. The total size of financial assets (stock market capitalisation, debt market outstanding and bank assets, excluding derivatives) has grown dramatically from 108% of global GDP in 1980 to over 400% by 2009 . If the notional value of all derivative contracts were included, finance would be roughly 16 times the size of the global real sector, as measured by GDP. The agent now dwarfs the real sector in economic and, some say, political power.

Can finance be a perpetual profit machine that makes more money than the real sector? In the US, finance's share of total corporate profits grew from 10% in the early 1980s to 40% in 2006. Since wages and bonuses make up between 30% to 70% of financial sector costs, there are tremendous incentives to generate short-term profits at higher risks, particularly through leverage.



The key thrusts of the post-crisis reforms in the financial sector are - caps on leverage, strengthened capital and liquidity, more transparency in linking remuneration with risks, and a macro-prudential and counter-cyclical approach to systemic risks. What the current reforms have not addressed is the increasing concentration of the finance industry at the global level and increasing political power that may sow the seeds for another Too Big to Fail (TBTF) failure in the next crisis.

In 2008, the 25 largest banks in the world accounted for US$44.7 trillion in assets equivalent to 73% of global GDP and 42.7% of total global banking assets . In 1990, none of the top 25 banks had total assets larger than their “home” GDP. By 2008, there were seven , with more than half of the 25 banks having assets larger than 50% of their “home” GDP.

Post-crisis, the concentration level has increased as there were mergers with failed institutions. With this rate of growth and concentration, the largest global financial institutions simply outgrew the ability of their host nations and the global regulatory structure to underwrite and supervise them. Such concentration of wealth and power is a political issue, not a regulatory one.

Finance is not independent of the real sector, but interdependent upon the real sector. It is a pivotal amplifier of the underlying weaknesses in the real sector that led to the financial crisis over-consumption, over-leverage and bad governance. In the past 30 years, the finance sector has helped print money, encouraging its customers and itself (particularly through shadow banking) to take on more leverage in the search for yield. Instead of exercising discipline over borrowers and investors, it did not exercise discipline over its own leverage and risks.

Unfortunately, there was also supervisory failure. To bail out the financial sector from its own mistakes, advanced countries, already burdened by rising welfare expenses, have doubled their fiscal deficits to over 100% of GDP.

In spite of these trends, we should not demonise finance or blame the regulators, but examine the real structural and systemic issues facing the world and how finance should respond. The greatest opportunity for finance is the rise of the emerging markets.

An additional one billion in the working population and middle class over the next two to three decades will have more to spend and more to invest. At the same time, the world needs to address the massive stress on natural resources arising from new consumption, which is likely to be three times current levels. Ecologically, financially and politically, the present model of over-consumption funded by over-concentrated leverage is unsustainable.

Indeed, to replicate the existing unsustainable financial model in the emerging markets may invite a bigger global crisis.

Sustainable finance hinges on sustainable business and on a more inclusive, greener, sustainable environment.

Financial leaders need to address a world where consumption and investment will fundamentally change.

To arrive at a greener and more inclusive, sustainable world, there will be profound changes in lifestyles, with greener products, supply chains and distribution channels.

Social networking is changing consumer and investor feedback so that industry, including finance, will become more networked and more attuned to demographic and demand changes.

As community leaders, finance should lead that drive for a more inclusive, sustainable future.

The greatest transformation of the financial sector is less likely to be driven by regulation than by the enlightened self-interest of the financial community.

Only when trust is restored, when finance cannot thrive independently of the real sector, will we have sustainable finance.

The incentive issues are very clear. If financial engineers are paid far more than green engineers, will a green economy emerge first or asset bubbles?

Andrew Sheng is president of the Fung Global Institute.