“The US Is Bankrupt,” Blasts Biderman, “We Now Await The Cramdown”

 Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Chris Hamilton via Charles Biderman TrimTabs’ blog,

US is Bankrupt: $89.5 Trillion in US Liabilities vs. $82 Trillion in Household Net Worth & The Gap is Growing. We Now Await the Nature of the Cramdown.

There are many ways to look at the United States government debt, obligations, and assets.  Liabilities include Treasury debt held by the public or more broadly total Treasury debt outstanding.  There’s unfunded liabilities like Medicare and Social Security.  And then the assets of all the real estate, all the equities, all the bonds, all the deposits…all at today’s valuations.  But let’s cut straight to the bottom line and add it all up…$89.5 trillion in liabilities and $82 trillion in assets.  There.  It’s not a secret anymore…and although these are all government numbers, for some strange reason the government never adds them all together or explains them…but we will.

The $89.5 trillion in liabilities include:

  • $20.69 trillion
    • $12.65 trillion public Treasury debt (interest rate sensitive bonds sold to finance government spending)
      • Fyi – $5.35 trillion of “intra-governmental” Treasury debt are not included as they are considered an asset of the particular programs (SS, etc.) and simultaneously a liability of the Treasury
  • $6.54 trillion civilian and Military Pensions and Benefits payable
  • $1.5 trillion in “other” liabilities http://www.fms.treas.gov/finrep13/note_finstmts/fr_notes_fin_stmts_note13.html.
  • $69 trillion (present value terms what should be saved now to make up the present and future anticipated tax shortfalls vs. present and future payouts).
    • $3.7 trillion SMI (Supplemental Medical Insurance)
    • $39.5 trillion Medicare or HI (Hospital Insurance) Part B / D
    • $25.8 trillion Social Security or OASDI (Old Age Survivors Disability Insurance)
      • Fyi – $5+ trillion of additional unfunded state liabilities not included.

Source: 2013 OASDI and Medicare Trustees’ Reports. (pg. 183), http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/661234.p

These needs can be satisfied only through increased borrowing, higher taxes, reduced program spending, or some combination.  But since 1969 Treasury debt has been sold with the intention of paying only the interest (but never repaying the principal) and also in ’69 LBJ instituted the “Unified Budget” putting all social spending into the general budget reaping the gains in the present year absent calculating for the future liabilities. If you don’t know the story of how unfunded liabilities came to be and want to understand how this took place, please stop and read as USA Ponzi explains nicely… http://usaponzi.com/cooking-the-books.html

$81.8 trillion in US Household “net worth”

According to the Federal’s Z.1 balance sheet http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/current/z1r-5.pdf, the US has a net worth of $81.8 trillion – significantly up from the ’09 low of $55.5 trillion…a $23 trillion increase in five years.  Fascinatingly, “household” liabilities are still $500 billion lower now than the peak in ’08 but asset “valuations” are up $22.5 trillion.  All while wages have been declining.  A cursory glance at the Federal Reserve’s $4 trillion in balance sheet growth in the same time period shows how the lack of growth in “household” liabilities (currently @ $13.7 trillion) has been co-opted by the Fed.

I believe it’s clear when incomes no longer supported credit and debt growth in ’08, consumers tapped out and in stepped the Federal Reserve to bridge the slowdown.  But what the Fed may or may not have realized is once they stepped in, there was no stepping out.

(Charles, would be great if you could export this chart from FRED to be included…or if you have a better idea to show this relationship, would be great???)

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=GVF

How We Got Here – Growth of Debt vs. GDP

45 years of ever increasing debt loads, social safety net growth, corporate welfare.  45 years of Rep’s and Dem’s in the White House and Congress bought by special interests and politicians buying citizens votes with laws enacted absent the revenue to pay for them.   We have a Treasury and Federal Reserve willing to “innovate” and wordsmith to avoid the national recognition of the true difficulties and implications of our present situation.  45 years of intentionally avoiding an honest accounting of our national obligations, mislabeling, and misdirecting to pretend these obligations can and will be honored.  45 years of cornice like debt and promise accumulation simply awaiting the avalanche of claimant redemptions and debt repayments.

First, an historical snapshot for perspective of the last time US Treasury debt was larger than our economy (debt/GDP in excess of 100% in 1946) and subsequent progress of debt vs. GDP…and why anyone suggesting there is a parallel from post WWII to now is simply ill informed.

Post-WWII:

  • ’46-’59 (13yrs)
    • Debt grew 1.06x’s ($269 B to $285 B)
    • GDP grew 2.2x’s ($228 B to $525 B)
    • ’60-’75 (15yrs)
      • Debt grew 2x’s ($285 B to $533 B)
      • GDP grew 3.3x’s ($525 to $1.7 T) Income grew 3.3x’s ($403 B to $1.37 T)
        • ’65 Great Society initiated, ’69 unfunded liabilities begin under a “Unified Budget”

Post-Vietnam War:

  • ’76 -’04 (28yrs)
    • Debt grew 15x’s ($533 B à $7.4 T) Unfunded liability 15x’s ($3 T to $45 T)
    • GDP grew 7.3x’s ($1.7 T à $12.4 T) Income grew 7.4x’s ($1.37 T to $10.1 T)
    • ’05 -’14 (9yrs)
      • Debt grew 2.4x’s or 240% ($7.4 T à $17.5 T) Unfunded liability 1.5x’s ($45 T to $69 T)
      • GDP grew 1.4x’s or 140% ($12.4 T à $17 T) Income grew 1.4x’s ($10.1 T to $14.2 T)
        • Z1 Household net worth grew 1.25x’s from $65 T to $82 T…

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/pi/2014/pdf/pi0614_hist.pdf

If the trends continue as they have since ’75, Treasury debt will grow 2x’s to 3x’s faster than GDP and income to service it…and the results would look as follows in 10 years:

  • ’15 – ‘24
    • Treasury debt will grow est. ($17.5 T à $34 T to $44 T)
    • GDP* will grow est. ($17 T à $22 T to $24 T)…income growth likely similar to GDP.

* = I won’t even get into the overstatement of economic activity within the GDP #’s…just noting there is an overstatement of activity.

So, while the Treasury debt growth rate skyrocketed from ’05 onward and the GDP growth slumped to its lowest since WWII, the unfunded liabilities grew even faster.

Drumroll Please – Total Debt/Obligation growth vs. Debt

Let’s go back to our ’75-’14 numbers and recalculate based on total Federal Government debt and liabilities:

  • ’75-’14
    • debt (total government obligations) grew 33x’s 168x’s ($533 B à $17.5 T $89.5 T*)
    • GDP grew 10x’s ($1.7 T to 17 T)
      • Household net worth grew 15x’s ($5.4 to $82 T) while median household income grew 3x’s (est. $17k to $51k) while Real median household income grew 1.13x’s ($45k to $51k)

*$89.5 T is the 2012 fiscal year end budget number, the 2013 fiscal year end # is likely to be approx. $5+ T higher, or debt grew 180x’s in 40 years vs. 10x’s for GDP / income….but seriously, does it really matter if debt grew at 10x’s, 16x’s, or 18x’s the pace of the underlying economy…all are uncollectable in taxes and unpayable except for QE or like programs.

Why Can’t We Pay Off the Debt or Even Pay it Down?

Take 2013 Federal Government tax revenue and spending as an illustration:

  • $16.8 Trillion US economy (gross domestic product)
    • $2.8 Trillion Federal tax revenue (taxes in)
    • $3.5 Trillion Federal budget (spending out)
      • -$680 Billion budget deficit (bridged by sale of Treasury debt spent now and counted as a portion of GDP)
      • = $550 Billion economic growth?!?
        • PLEASE NOTE – The ’13 GDP “growth” is less than the new debt (although the new debt spent is counted as new GDP) and the interest on the debt will need be serviced indefinitely.

Why Cutting Benefits or Raising Taxes Lead to the Same Outcome

While many try to dismiss these liabilities assuming we will continue to only service the debt rather than repay principal and interest; assuming we turn down the SS benefits via means testing, delaying benefits, reducing benefits; assuming we will bend the curve regarding Medicaid, Medicare, and Welfare benefits; assuming we will avoid further far flung wars and military obligations and stop feeding the military industrial complex; assuming no future economic slowdowns or recessions or worse; assuming a cheap and plentiful energy source is found to transition away from oil.  But all these debts and liabilities are someone else’s future income they are now reliant upon; someone’s future addition to GDP.  If these debts or obligations are curtailed or cancelled to reduce the debt or future liability, the future GDP slows in kind and tax revenues lag and budget deficits grow.  Of course I do advocate these debts and liabilities cannot be maintained, but austerity (real austerity) is painful and would set the stage for a likely depression where the nation (world) proceeds with a bankruptcy determining what and how much of the promises made can be honored until wants, needs, and means are all brought back in alignment.

So What’s it All Mean?

Let’s get real, austerity is not going to happen and we aren’t going to balance the budget.  We’re never going to pay off our debt or even pay it down.  We’re rapidly moving from 4 taxpayers for every social program recipient to 2 per recipient.  And ultimately, now we aren’t even really paying the interest on the debt…the Federal Reserve is just printing money (QE1, 2, 3) to buy the bonds and push the interest payments ever lower masking the true cost of these programs.  Of course, interest rates (Federal Funds Rates) have edged lower since 1980’s 20% to todays 0% to make the massive increases in debt serviceable.

Politicians and central bankers have shown they are going to print money to fulfill the obligations despite the declining purchasing power of the money.  It’s not so much science as religion.  A belief that infinite growth will be reality through unknown technologies, innovations, and solutions that in four decades have gone unsolved but somehow in the next decade will not only be solved but implemented.  Because it is credit that is undertaken with a belief that the obligation will ultimately allow for future repayment of principal, interest, and a profit.  But without the growth, the debt cannot be repaid nor liabilities honored.  Without the ability to repay the principal, the debts just grow and must have ever lower rates to avoid interest Armageddon.  This knowledge creates moral hazard that ever more debt will be rewarded with ever lower rates and thus ever greater system leverage.  The politicians and central bankers will continue stepping in to avoid over indebted individuals, corporations, crony capitalists, cities, states, federal government from failing.  It is a fait accompli that a hyper-monetization has/is/will take place…and now it is simply a matter of time until the globe either becomes saturated with dollars and/or reject the currency (so much to discuss here on likely demotion or replacement of the Petro-dollar and more…).  Because the earthquake (unpayable debt and obligations) has already taken place, now we are simply waiting for the tsunami.  Forget debt repayment or debt reduction…forget means testing or “bending cost curves”…we’re approaching the moment where even at historically low rates we will not be able to pay the interest and maintain government spending…without printing currency as this generation of American’s have never seen.  Bad governance and bad policy coupled with disinterested citizens will demand it.

Epilogue – So Where Do you put your Money?

No one can really know what will have value in this politicized crony capitalistic system as the hyper-monetization ramps up…all I can suggest is to hedge your bets with some physical precious metals, some minimal leveraged real estate, but also stocks and bonds and even some cash…because although there are natural forces in favor of the tangible, finite goods…there are also equally determined forces bound to push bond yields down, real estate and particularly stock prices up.  Unfortunately, the more you know, the more you know you don’t know…invest and live accordingly.

Using Supply and Demand to Beat the Market: An Interview with Fund Manager Charles Biderman

Using Supply and Demand to Beat the Market: An Interview with Fund Manager Charles Biderman

By Dan Steinhart, Managing Editor, The Casey Report

It’s an investing strategy so simple, you’ll wonder why you didn’t think of it.

Like any other market, the stock market obeys the laws of supply and demand. Reduce supply, and prices should rise.

Therefore, companies that reduce their outstanding shares by buying back their own stock should outperform the market.

That’s the basic theory that Charles Biderman, who was recently featured in Forbes and is chairman and founder of TrimTabs Investment Research, follows to manage his ETF, TrimTabs Float Shrink (TTFS).

And it works. Since its inception in October 2011, TTFS has beaten the S&P 500 by 15 percentage points. That’s no small feat, especially during a bull market. Most hedge fund managers would sacrifice their firstborns for such stellar performance.

There are, of course, nuances to the strategy, which Charles explains in an interview with Casey Research’s managing editor Dan Steinhart below.. For example, companies must use their own money to buy back shares. Borrowing for buybacks is a no-no.

It’s also worth mentioning, you can meet and learn all about Charles’ strategy in person. He’ll be available at  Casey Research’s Summit: Thriving in a Crisis Economy in San Antonio, TX from September 19-21 where he’ll be working with attendees to teach them how to beat the market using supply and demand analysis.

And Charles is just one of many all-stars on the faculty for this summit—click here to browse the others, which include Alex Jones, Jim Rickards, and, of course, Doug Casey.

Also, you can still sign up for this Summit and meet some of the world’s brightest financial minds and receive a special early-bird discount. You’ll save $400 if you sign up by July 15th. Click here to register now.

Now for the complete Charles Biderman interview. Enjoy!

Using Supply and Demand to Beat the Market: An Interview with Fund Manager Charles Biderman

Dan: Thanks for joining us today, Charles. Could you start by telling us a little bit about your unique approach to stock market research?

Charles: Sure. I’ve been following the markets for 40 years. Everybody talks about earnings and interest rates and growth rates and what the government is doing. But here’s the thing: the stock market is made up of shares of stock. That’s it. There is nothing else in the stock market.

So my firm tracks the supply and demand of the stock market. The number of shares outstanding is the supply. Money is the demand. We discovered when more money chases fewer shares, the market goes up. Isn’t that shocking?

Dan: [Laughs] Not very, when you put it that way.

Charles: Whenever I talk with individual investors, I tell them that there’s only one reason for them to listen to me: that they think I can help them beat the market. I’ve spent 40-some years looking at markets in a different way than other people. I’ve found that the market is like a casino: it has a house and players. You know the house has an edge, because if it didn’t, the stock market wouldn’t exist.

Who is the house in the stock market? Not brokers, or even high-frequency traders. Companies are the house. As investors, we’re playing with their shares, and the companies know more about them than we do.

I’ve discovered that companies buy back their own shares because they think the price is heading higher. So when a company buys back its own shares using its own money, you should buy that stock too. But only if the company uses its own money. Borrowing money to buy shares is a no-no.

Conversely, when companies are growing their shares outstanding by selling stock to raise money, they don’t like where their stock price is headed. If they don’t want to own their own stock, you shouldn’t either.

My basic philosophy is to follow supply and demand of stocks and money, and you can’t go wrong.

Dan: Your theory has worked very well in practice. Your TrimTabs Float Shrink ETF (TTFS) beat the S&P 500 by an impressive 12 percentage points in 2013. And that’s really saying something, considering how well the S&P 500 performed.

Charles: Yes, and we’ve outperformed the S&P 500 over the past year as well.

Dan: What specific investment strategies did you use to generate that return?

Charles: Our fund invests in 100 companies that are growing free cash flow—which is the money left over after taxes, R & D, capital expenditures, and dividends—and using it to buy back their own shares.

We modify our holdings every month because we’ve discovered that the positive effects of buybacks only last for a short time. So when a company stops shrinking its float, we kick it out. Our turnover is about 20 stocks per month.

Dan: The supply side of the equation seems pretty straightforward. What do you use to approximate demand? Money supply numbers?

Charles: Sort of. Institutions own around 80% of the shares of the Russell 1000, so we track the money that flows through them into and out of the stock market.

We also track wage and salary growth. We’re not interested in income generated by government actions, but rather by the wages of the 137 million Americans who have jobs subject to withholding. Money for investment comes from income. People can only invest the money they have left over after they cover expenses.

Income in the US is currently around $7.5 trillion per year. That’s an increase of around $300 million over last year, or a little under 3% after inflation. That’s not sufficient to generate money for investment.

However, the Fed’s zero interest-rate policy has showered companies with plenty of cash to improve their operations. As a result, many industries have record-high profit margins. But at the same time, most management teams are still afraid to reinvest their profits into expanding their businesses because they don’t see final consumption demand growing. So these companies have been buying back their shares instead. The total number of shares in the market has declined pretty much consistently since 2010.

An investment institution typically targets a specific percentage of cash to hold, say 5%. So when a company buys back its own stock from these institutions, the institutions now have more money and fewer shares. To meet their cash allocation target, they have to go out and buy more shares. So the end result is more money chasing fewer shares.

This is why we’ve been experiencing a “melt-up” in the market. It has nothing to do with the economy—it’s solely due to supply and demand. And as buybacks continue, stock prices will continue to rise.

The caveat is that unless the economy recovers in earnest, the gap between stock prices and the real-world economy will continue to grow. At some point, it will get too wide, and we’ll get a bang moment similar to the housing crisis, when everyone realized that housing prices were too far above their underlying value in 2007.

Dan: Do you monitor macroeconomic issues as well?

Charles: Yes, but as I like to say, all macro issues manifest as supply and demand eventually. Supply and demand is what’s happening right now. All of those other inputs get us to “now.”

Dan: I understand. So you’re more concerned with the effects of supply and demand than the causes.

Charles: Right. Price is a function of the world as it exists right now. If you don’t have cash, it doesn’t matter how fantastic stock market fundamentals look. Without cash, you can’t buy, no matter how compelling the value.

Dan: Could you share a preview of what you’ll be talking about at the Casey Research Summit in San Antonio?

Charles: I’ll be giving specific advice to individual investors on how to beat the market. Outperforming the overall market is very difficult to do, and earnings analysis and graphic analysis has never been proven to do it over a long period. Supply and demand analysis has. So I will work with attendees and show them how to apply those strategies to beat the market going forward.

Dan: Great; I look forward to that. Is there anything else you’d like to add?

Charles: The phrase “disruptive technology” is popular today. I think investing on the basis of supply and demand is a disruptive technology compared with other investing strategies, most of which have never really worked. Cheap, broad-based index funds are so popular because very few investing strategies offer any real edge. I believe supply and demand investing gives me an edge.

Dan: Thanks very much for sharing your insights today. I’m excited to hear what else you’ll have to say at our Thriving in a Crisis Economy Summit in San Antonio.

Charles: I’m looking forward to the Summit as well. I hope the aura of the San Antonio Spurs’ victory will rub off on all of us.

Dan: Me too. Thanks again.