Tuesday, September 27, 2016

So it WAS too good to be true

Economy and Markets

Everything You Think You Know About Stocks is a Lie

Stop worrying about earnings. Stop worrying about who's going to sit in the Oval Office. And stop making decisions with your gut about which stocks to buy or sell. Because there is a better way. Now, one top-market trader is revealing the secrets behind his proprietary market timing signal that focuses on the one true bull market indicator. Nothing else matters.

ECONOMY & MARKETS | September 27, 2016

Income was Too Good to be True

By Rodney Johnson, Senior Editor, Economy & Markets


The Census Bureau reported that median income jumped 5.2% last year. As I pointed out last week, that's a solid increase, but still leaves us short of the record in 1999.

Still, something about the gains struck me as wrong. Even with cities, states, and some businesses bumping up their minimum wage, 5.2% seemed like a lot.

So I went digging. And the more I dug, the more disappointed and frustrated I became. As usual, the source of my angst was the federal government.

Long-time readers know my ongoing annoyance with the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) when it comes to unemployment figures and their birth/death adjustment. Now the Census Bureau is getting in on the act, estimating numbers where respondents don't give answers.

But the bureaucrats don't stop there. In addition to filling in blanks, they're also double counting income from previous years, and the problem is about to get much worse.

In previous surveys, respondents were asked if they held certain types of accounts or received different streams of income, including wages, interest, pensions, government assistance, etc. The details provided were pretty good, but the statisticians suspected they were missing some buckets of cash.

So in 2013 they tested a new set of questions, and compared the answers to the traditional survey. Sure enough, there was more money! By their calculations, incomes were a full 3% higher than had previously been estimated.

The median American family didn't bring in $51,939 as reported. Instead, that household actually received $53,514. An extra $130 per month could help a lot of families – from those with kids to retirees – make ends meet… if only it was real cash.

This $25 Trillion Bubble is About to Burst

The investment that triggered the Great Depression is at it again. And unfortunately, it's sitting in the portfolios of 81% of retirees over 65. It's not stocks or bonds, but they will both crash when its bubble bursts. Here's proof…

To arrive at the higher figure, the Census Bureau parsed questions on items like interest income to figure out if consumers held any interest bearing accounts. Then surveyors would circle back and ask respondents how much they earned on each account. If respondents didn't know, or refused to answer, the Census Bureau would ask the size of their assets, and then estimate the interest they should have earned.

According to their calculations, by changing the questions the number of Americans earning interest shot up from 86 million to 122 million, and the total interest received in 2013 increased from $187 billion to $387 billion.

The new calculation shows 41% more people earning interest, and 49% more interest earned. Imagine the government's surprise to find that we'd been holding out on $200 billion in interest income!

To put it mildly, I'm a bit suspect of the government's new estimate.

But I have a bigger problem with how they're treating retirement accounts, and what it means for future reports.

Using the old methodology, in 2013 the Census Bureau reported that one million people received income from a retirement account, totaling $18 billion. With the new approach, these numbers jump to 5.2 million people and $60 billion. The higher numbers make more sense to me, given that our over-70 population keeps growing, but all the funds withdrawn aren't income.

The government asks if funds withdrawn are reinvested elsewhere, taking care of that part of the equation. My issue has to do with the original money.

The survey counts as earnings all wages, salaries, and money from almost every source that isn't borrowed, or insurance proceeds before paying taxes, contributing to pensions, paying union dues, etc. So the money workers earn before contributing to a retirement plan is counted as income in the year it was received. And then it's counted again in the year it's withdrawn from the retirement account.


With so many boomers funding retirement accounts over the years and now retiring in large numbers, this problem is going to get worse. We'll have the Census Bureau telling us that income is on the rise, when it's really just savers withdrawing the funds they contributed.

Interestingly, this is not how the bureau treats other accounts. Funds withdrawn from savings accounts aren't counted as income, just the interest is, which makes sense. The original deposits were earned at some previous point.

The obvious solution for the double counting is to calculate how much of the funds withdrawn from retirement accounts represent earnings and how much represents investment and interest income.

Obviously that's a big, hairy question, but hey, I'm not the one double counting, they are.

Then again, I'd imagine the government has no interest in a "solution." They've already found one. Their redesigned survey shows income moving upward and onward, and a positive impression is all that matters, right?


P.S. No matter how you count it, millions of baby boomers face a retirement of penny pinching, as I explain in the October Boom & Bust. It doesn't have to be that way. There are things you can do now to boost the funds you have available in retirement. You're already ahead of the curve with your subscription to Economy & Markets. Take the next big step forward and read Harry's latest book, The Sale of a Lifetime.

Follow me on Twitter @RJHSDent

Subscribe to Our Premium Monthly Newsletter

Will you be one of the millions of Americans devastated by the coming safe asset slaughter? As a subscriber to Boom & Bust, Harry Dent, Rodney Johnson and Adam O'Dell will make sure you're not. In fact, they'll help you profit from the chaos that lies ahead.


facebook YouTube Google Plus Twitter

Economy & Markets: You are receiving this e-mail as a part of your free subscription to the Economy & Markets E-Letter.

As an Economy & Markets Daily subscriber, you're eligible for the full details on Harry Dent's most disturbing prediction in years. To uncover which one of the market's safest and most popular investments is about to get slaughtered, click here now to view his presentation.

Remove your email from this list: click here

To cancel by mail or for any other subscription issues, write us at:
Delray Publishing | Attn: Member Services | 55 NE 5th Avenue, Suite 200 | Delray Beach, 33483 | Phone: 888-211-2215 | Fax: 410-223-2682
Website: www.dentresearch.com | Privacy Policy: www.dentresearch.com/Privacy-Policy

LEGAL NOTICE: Protected by copyright laws of the United States and international treaties. This e-letter may only be used pursuant to the subscription agreement and any reproduction, copying, or redistribution (electronic or otherwise, including on the worldwide web), in whole or in part, is strictly prohibited without the express written permission of Delray Publishing.

This work is based on SEC filings, current events, interviews, corporate press releases and what we've learned as financial journalists. It may contain errors and you shouldn't make any investment decision based solely on what you read here. It's your money and your responsibility. The information herein is not intended to be personal legal or investment advice and may not be appropriate or applicable for all readers. If personal advice is needed, the services of a qualified legal, investment or tax professional should be sought. We expressly forbid our writers from having a financial interest in any security recommended to our readers. All of our employees and agents must wait 24 hours after on-line publication or 72 hours after the mailing of printed-only publication prior to following an initial recommendation.

No comments:

Post a Comment