Entries Tagged 'United States' ↓

Amidst the housing crisis I have read many stories about how many immigrant minorities were “duped” into borrowing ridiculous amounts of money for homes that they could not possibly afford.  An example that is often passed around is of the strawberry pickers who bought a home priced over $700,000 on a $15,000 annual income.    I cannot say that I understand the motivation of this family on buying such an expensive home, but I can speak from my experience as a Chinese immigrant as to why the “American dream” of homeownership could be so alluring and so destructive.

First of all, most Chinese immigrants I know are pretty frugal about everything except for their homes, cars, and their kids’ education.  Amongst the adults in my parents generation I think most do not go on expensive vacations, eat out  a lot, or buy very expensive clothes.  As a result, their idea of home affordability is a lot higher than 38% of their incomes.  Several people have said to me that Chinese people do not really care about spending more than 50% of their incomes on a mortgage, and I have found that to be true in many instances.  As  a result many people buy a lot more than they probably should have.  I have also  heard the same logic from some first generation  Asian Indian coworkers in the past.  Basically, they can afford the expensive house because they save on everything else.  Usually for married couples this is usually fine until one person loses his or her job.

Another cultural dynamic  that skews how affordable a home is for many immigrants is that many adult children , parents, and other family members are expected to pool their money together towards buying a house.  I know many people my age who own homes due to parental contribution, or some are living with their parents and helping to pay for the mortgage.  In the case of the strawberry pickers it seems that several families pooled together to afford the ridiculously high mortgage.  I think this arrangement is a lot less common in non-immigrant Caucasian American families.  Again, this could work if all family members are committed to paying for the debt and they keep their jobs, but otherwise it could be disastrous.

Next, Chinese culture has a big thing with something we call “face” or mianzi.  It essentially means that you have to project how successful you are to others.  In America I guess it is called “keeping up with the Joneses”.  Having a big beautiful house in a nice school district is a big part of having face.  It is something you can take pictures of and send back home to China and it is also something you can show off to friends and family via dinner parties.  Having face also includes having successful kids, and sometimes a nice car, too.  The value of face is priceless for a lot of Chinese people, and they are willing to sacrifice financially for what is essentially bragging rights. I remember a friend telling me once that all her parents spends on is their house and their expensive car, and they do not seem to enjoy life at all because they have no money left over to take vacations.  However, having that house and car seems to add to their self worth even though she thinks it is pretty superficial.

Finally, I think homeownership is so ridiculously appealing to all immigrants because it is a form of assimilation.  It is saying to the world that you own a little piece of America and you are part of something bigger.  Most  immigrants I know do work really hard for what they have, and it is pretty sad when they lose it all, but ultimately those who are in foreclosure now are responsible for their own decisions.  There were definitely shady real estate agents and mortgage brokers that targeted immigrant populations in this crisis, but I think many immigrants lost their usual conservatism and frugality when they were mesmerized with the idea of owning a home.  I know many immigrant families are still plodding away by pooling their incomes for huge mortgages these days, and I applaud them for being responsible, but for those who are draining their savings perhaps it is better to walk away and  start over again.

Share This

There was a mini panic in the financial markets recently when the 10 year and 30 year U.S. Treasury yields rose significantly in one day.  The 30 year bond’s yield is now over 4.5%.  This is due to the fact that the central bank has been trying to push long term rates down by announcing that it is buying an additional $1 trillion of U.S. agency debt.  It seems like bond buyers are no longer taking this manipulation of yields, and they are demanding the interest on their investments.  What does this mean for little guys like you and me?

First of all, I am glad that this is happening because I am just sick of all the efforts to push down mortgage rates  when there is no good reason to push it down.  Higher mortgage rates will encourage people to borrow less money, and push down housing prices.  That is not a bad thing on both counts. People will buy houses when it is affordable and reasonable.  Many people are buying right now because housing prices have come down dramatically, and not because of the historically low  mortgage rate. New homebuyers may not be able to lock down mortgages under 5% any longer, but the dip in prices to come may just make up the difference. The only negative is for those who are waiting to refinance, because those below 5% rates are now gone.

Higher yields on treasuries may also make those in charge of the  U.S. government think a little bit before they issue more debt. They need to know that they cannot make every bond buyer pay extremely low rates and this endless borrowing needs to be controlled. If the U.S. government spent and borrowed less, then our taxes may be lower.  However, these higher yields will just mean that Americans will be paying more in interest for years to come with their tax revenues.  This is unfortunate, but bond buyers are investors who should not have to accept rates that do not match the risk of the investment.  For what it is worth, I think right now the yield on 10 and 30 year treasuries is still fairly low so the U.S. is still getting a fairly good deal.

Some other effects I am hopeful about is that perhaps short term rates will follow on the upward trend and savings rates will go up accordingly.  The worst scenario is that inflation is going up AND savings yields are still abysmal, and in a way that is sort of happening now.  Inflation isn’t tremendous this year, but I am noticing some small increases in gas and food prices.  Additionally, wage growth is fairly small all over the board due to the recession.

Anyway, the Obama administration tried to reassure  China that its holdings are safe by pledging that the U.S. will try to reduce its budget deficit and eliminate the market manipulations by the government.  I personally think that China’s worries are justified because actions speak louder than words.  If the U.S. is really trying to reduce its budget deficit then it shouldn’t pledge more and more borrowing and spending.   The fact that Geithner had to make such a trip to reassure Chinese leaders shows that the U.S. government is feeling insecure about its debt situation and that does not inspire confidence in the bond market. China really has no obligation to buy trillions of U.S. treasuries and China is free to invest its reserves however it wants.  If China’s reluctance to lend encourages the US to cut its borrowing and spending then it is a good thing for  United State citizens in the long run.

In conclusion, the stock markets are showing signs of recovery, so this will probably push bond yields higher since there will probably be less demand for bonds.   This is good news for everyone who has money in the stock market.  It is reasonable that bond yields are going up, and it is nice to see some market forces push back against the heavy hand of government intervention.

Share This

Today the overseers of Social Security and Medicare reported that these programs are now closer to insolvency due to the recession and falling tax revenues.  Medicare is already pulling in less tax revenues than it pays out in benefits and will no longer be able to pay 100% of benefits in less than 8 years.  It seems that these programs would need to either increase tax rates or cut back benefits to be sustainable.  At the same time, many Americans are calling for single-payer healthcare, which means that the government alone would set up a health insurance system that pays all medical claims and negotiate rates with care providers.  Essentially, people are clamoring for universal healthcare, but how much would it cost?  Here are some of my thoughts on the issue.

First of all, I agree that healthcare expenses are  quite ridiculous in America.  If you ever get an itemized bill from a hospital where you were treated you would see that some small items such as bandaids are charged at exorbitant rates.  If you have adequate insurance from your workplace then the out of pocket expenses are not so bad.  For example, I will be paying $100 total for my upcoming delivery and hospital stay.  However, if you do not have good insurance having a baby could cost tens of thousands of dollars.  One of my friends said that a doctor was in her room for about half an hour while she was delivering her baby, and in the itemized bill she got the charge for that service was over $3000.  It is really no surprise to me that unexpected medical expenses are the number one cause of personal bankruptcy.

The biggest problem I see with the current system is that there is not much transparency in how much each hospital and care provider charges for various services.  Every care provider sets their own price for the uninsured and then another set of prices for each insurer they deal with.  There is pretty much no way for a consumer to get a decent discount without going through an insurer.  Basically, there is this extra layer of medical insurance consumers have to wade through.  Consumers are forced to shop between medical insurers, and not medical servicers and the priorities of medical insurers and medical servicers are vastly different.  Medical insurers do not want to pay for claims if they don’t have to, and so they have an incentive to reject applicants who need care the most.  As a result,medical insurance is prohibitively expensive for those with existing conditions or need constant care.

So what happens if the government takes over the healthcare system completely?  If that happens consumers will not have the choice of choosing between insurers and the government will have to negotiate prices with the care providers.  It would cut down a lot of overhead, but  it may not cost less than the current system for the individual consumer and here is why. Currently most people in America have some form of employment sponsored private insurance that costs very little out of pocket. Even without an employer, there are high deductible plans available with low premiums for most healthy people that individuals can choose from.   Some young healthy individuals even skip health insurance to save money because they have the choice to do so.    However, if we switch to a completely government based system it would be paid out of taxes, and there would be no choice but to pay it.   Currently Medicare is 2.9% of payroll, and it is not enough to insure just  the elderly and disabled.  It is estimated that Medicare taxes needs to be nearly 7% of payroll to be sustainable.  Just imagine if the program has to cover everyone in the United States and you will see that the tax may be well over 10% of someone’s pay.  Do you currently pay 10% of your yearly income on medical insurance?  I certainly don’t, and I think most people don’t.

I think a better way to healthcare reform is to let consumers have more transparency into the costs of services and allow a bit of comparison shopping.  I know how much it costs to fix my car, so why can’t I know how much it costs to remove a mole? It is possible that some people do not need insurance if they just want some basic preventive services that can be provided by care providers directly at reasonable rates provided that they stay healthy.   Insurers also shouldn’t be able to reject or price gouge patients based on existing conditions because everyone should get the care they need.  Perhaps universal healthcare could work here, but  many more relatively healthy people will have to pitch in much more money than before, and they won’t have a choice in the matter.  Once such a system is in place it would also be very difficult to remove, and it would only get more expensive as people live longer lives.

Share This

The Silicon Valley is a fairly liberal place that has generally supported many of the Obama Administration’s moves, but yesterday  many in the tech industry do not seem happy about Obama’s proposal to effectively raise taxes on foreign income by billions of dollars.

Currently, U.S. based companies can defer corporate taxes on foreign income as long as they keep the income in another country.  Additionally, U.S. companies can deduct the foreign taxes and costs  they already paid against their income.  The Obama administration argues that this ships jobs overseas.  The problem with that argument  is that many U.S. based companies actually make more than 50% of their income from citizens of other countries.  Imagine if you are selling 1000000 units of something here in the United States, and you are selling 1000000 units of the same thing to the rest of the world, then you would absolutely need staff and offices in the rest of the world.  There is a Walmart in my hometown in China, and sure, it is staffed by Chinese people, but it also earns money from Chinese people.  Does the Obama administration think that taxing this Walmart more will bring those jobs to America?  That is absolutely ridiculous.  What it will do is that it would cut the profit margin of the Walmart in China, and the Chinese will have to suffer higher prices and they will probably just shop elsewhere.  This will reduce the competitiveness of American companies in other countries because other stores have to pay only the local taxes.

I really think this plan to enact protectionism via the tax code is really short sighted.  America has 5% of the world’s population, and a lot of the large multinational corporations have little room to expand in this country.  Just think of how many iPods and McDonalds you see everyday and you would understand that the United States is absolutely saturated with a lot of products and services and the growth rate for a company that stayed exclusively in the United States would not be as large as a company that sells to the rest of the world.  So why would the United States government punish corporations for making money from the rest of the 95% of the world?

Another consequence of this initiative that was not mentioned by the administration is that this will affect the stock prices of the bluest blue chips.  When you see those earnings per share numbers, they do include foreign earnings.  For example, Johnson and Johnson is a company that gets more than 50% of its earnings from foreign countries.  So imagine that half of its earnings suddenly had a tax of 30% compared to 2% the year before.  This will cut into the earnings per share significantly.  The result would be lower stock prices, and the further erosion of 401ks and pension funds.  What a great way to destroy more retirements.

The worst consequence is that large corporations could just pack up and leave the United States completely.  Just imagine all of the Silicon Valley greats like Oracle, Google, and Cisco reincorporating in another country with more favorable corporate tax systems and taking away tens of thousands of jobs permanently.  That would be a huge blow to the United States economy, and it may be irreparable.

So far, the reception to this plan has been somewhat hostile from many industry groups and foreign nations.  The Register in the UK states that “Obama declares war on Ireland” for its low business taxes.  In some ways, that is true.  U.S. based companies employ millions of people in foreign countries, and if the administration specifically targets foreign taxes, it is essentially targeting the livelihoods of these people.  It is also ridiculous to think that laying off foreign workers is good for America, because as the living standards of everyone else improves, they also purchase American goods.  If you take away those good paying jobs around the world, it is really worse for everyone.  The plan will supposedly raise $210 billion for the Treasury in the next decade, but at what cost to the global economy and America?

Share This

I admit it. I watch a lot of TV, and this year I have had the unpleasant experience of turning on the tube to find President Obama when I expected some funny or smart show to come on. This has happened repeatedly in the last few months and it is scheduled to happen again on 4/29.

Because of Obama I had to watch Valentine’s Day episodes of popular comedies in the middle of March. I am sorry but it just feels out of context to see a bunch of hearts on St. Patrick’s Day and every show was just a little less funny. Next, I now no longer know which day some shows are on because several networks changed airing dates to accommodate Obama. Some shows are also trying to catch up by showing multiple episodes in the same week and that is just plain confusing.

I have no problem with President Obama being on TV. After all, he has important things to say, but is it really necessary to preempt prime time television every few weeks on every single network channel? What is wrong with a 6pm news conference when news is usually shown on TV? It is possible to communicate to the public on cable news, the internet, or radio so I think all of these prime time conferences are done at least in part due to Obama’s enormous ego.

So what does this rant have to do with finance or business? Well, the TV networks are definitely losing millions of dollars with each prime time intrusion by President Obama. These two upcoming weeks are especially important because it is what’s known as May sweeps. This means that many shows are having their season finales so advertising is generally more expensive. Also, the sweeps ratings are important to every show since they are used to determine advertising rates for the next season. These prime time interruptions are really hurting the major networks and the shows they are airing. It also hurts the local network affiliates in every city and town in America who receive ad revenue from the shows they air. Most of all, the revenue loss will hurt the workers at these broadcasters and shows. If a company is forced to lose millions of dollars every few weeks they are bound to cut some personnel. Also, many of the new shows that are trying to establish themselves are hurt by the constantly shuffling scheduling, and every cancellation of a show is equivalent to the cancellation of hundreds of jobs.  So believe it or not, Obama’s decision to schedule his news conferences during prime time instead of say 4pm or 6pm is truly hurting people.  I think one of these networks should just stand up to the White House and say no and I am sure that network will get more viewers than the rest because they would be showing something different.

By now I can already predict what Obama is going to say on the news conference because he generally says the same thing over and over. First, he will say something to the effect that we are in a difficult economic crisis and everyone needs to work together. Then he will say that he has cut taxes for 95% of Americans and he is cracking down on the greedy bankers. Finally he will end up with the cliche that there is hope for America. Basically, Obama is continuing his campaign and since he is president now he has the power to get primo prime time coverage for free!

I am definitely not the only one mad about these prime time TV interruptions. It may seem silly that I care about TV so much, but it is my leisure time that Obama is sacrificing for his own ego. After working 8 to 10 hour days, I think millions of Americans deserve to be shown something that makes them happy for 20 minutes to an hour. Millions of people want to escape from the reality of this horrible economy and real life just for a little while, and Obama is taking that away when he can choose not to. So I don’t think it’s stupid to say that if your President really cared about your well being he or she would leave your favorite shows alone. News conferences belong on news channels, and not during Chuck or Bones.

Here is an idea, if Obama seriously wants to be on TV on prime time so often then he should just get his own reality show. I am sure that will have great ratings and actually add to the coffers of the network that snags it. At least that would stimulate the economy instead of taking money away from broadcasters.

Share This