On the Money: Relationship Test

I was watching CNBC's new show, On the Money, hosted by Carmen Ulrich, author of Generation Debt. When I saw it for the first time, I thought, "Oh no, not another Susie Orman." But Carmen, as she likes to be called, seems a little better, and she has a good financial compatibility test here:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/26353188/site/14081545/

A 33 year old Texan woman called into Carmen's show. She said her boyfriend of one year initiated a breakup after she wanted a prenup. Carmen told her that love trumps money, and a real partnership also includes a financial merger. The woman replied that she was generally a trusting person, but not with her money. I didn't catch any real resolution, but I love the idea of women demanding prenups--it's a good indicator of gender parity and how far we've come from the all-too-common scenario of men demanding their fiancees sign a prenup the night before the wedding. (Off the top of my head, without fact-checking, I read somewhere that Barry Bonds and Larry Ellison did this. As a result, Barry Bonds changed pre-nup law in the entire state of California, making it harder to enforce them.)

In other news, Muhammad Yunus, "banker to the world's poor," says he has a 98-99% payback success on his "sub sub sub subprime" micro-loans, without lawyers or insurance. In smaller environments, such as villages, people with nothing can be more trustworthy than people with money. The problem with a large place like Texas is it's too difficult for the 33 year old woman to get an accurate measure of her boyfriend's trustworthiness and integrity. She is behaving rationally, especially after only one year. My suggestion would have been to get back together with him, but on two conditions: one, ask him to wait for another year before proposing; and two, ask to see his monthly bills and bank statements to get an idea of his spending habits. Yes, she'd be a financial narc, but if a prenup is out of the question, how else is she going to allay her fears?

Percentage of Union Workers in U.S.

Interesting fact: according to today's WSJ (August 22, 2008; A11),

In the U.S., just 7.5% of private-sector workers are union members, and about 12% of all workers, including government workers. In the euro zone, 18% of private-sector workers and 22% of all workers, are unionized.

Unions themselves are neither good nor bad for the economy. In fact, theoretically, unions provide stability to workers and reduce replacement and retraining costs for employers, so they should be economically favorable. The problem with modern-day unions, especially government unions, is their benefits, such as pension and health care liabilities, are uncertain. Without some direct tie-in to the present value of funds in the budget, government union benefits could expand exponentially, sapping more and more taxpayer dollars. In addition, many union negotiations occur behind closed doors, providing no check on expanded taxpayer liabilities.

No business or government can survive by continuing to add undefined, potentially unlimited benefits while running major deficits.

More on California's government unions HERE. More on California's teachers' unions HERE.

More on the general topic of government unions here (Warren Buffett); here ("Rotting from Within"); and here (Road to Bankruptcy).

Update on February 15, 2010: the NYT and Phyllis Korkki have their own percentages on union membership HERE. Basically, in 2009, 12.3% of wage and salary workers were union members. 7.9% of the aforementioned 12.3% were government workers, meaning just 4.4% of private sector workers were unionized.

Among government workers, local government workers like teachers, cops, and firefighters (as opposed to state and federal government workers) had the highest rate of public sector membership, at 43.3%.

See THIS chart for more information (Catherine Rampell, NYT, June 1, 2010). In California, 13.7% of all employees were state and local government employees in 2009. That doesn't sound like a huge percentage, but most elections inspire only 50% to 70% of eligible voters to come out and vote. That means union members often supply 20% to 25% of the total voters on a proposition or candidate.

Update on May 3, 2012: according to a Alasdair Roberts Bloomberg article ("Can Occupy Wall Street Replace the Labor Movement?") published May 1, 2012,

"In 1981, the labor movement was already in decline, and the trend accelerated afterward. In 1960, one-third of the private-sector workforce had been represented by trade unions. Today, only 8 percent is. The missing army of private-sector union members--that is, the number of additional workers that the movement would include today if unionization rates had stayed at levels of the 1960s and 1970s--is about 20 million people."

Update on May 7, 2012: Amanda Paulson, Christian Science Monitor (online, seen May 7, 2012):

"Less than 7 percent of private-sector workers now belong to a union, compared with more than 30 percent in the 1950s. Since 1983, about 3 million fewer people are represented by unions...The public sector, however, has been somewhat cushioned...Some 36 percent of state and local workers belong to unions (and that includes "right-to-work" states that prohibit union-only workplaces and have far smaller union rosters)."

Update on December 12, 2012: CNN has a map that shows union membership per state:  http://money.cnn.com/interactive/news/economy/union-membership-by-state/  

Stocks Update, 8/22/08

Numbers below are based on prices at mid-day on August 22, 2008. Positions below have at least a $2,500 basis or current value of at least $2,500.

What's new? I don't list my mutual fund activity here, because activity is so sparse, but I added to my mutual fund positions in T. Rowe Price's EMERGING EUROPE & MEDITERRANEAN fund (TREMX). The fund is 61% Russian stocks and its value decreased after Russia invaded Georgia (imperial notions are considered bad for any economy). I cite TREMX and its majority Russian holdings because it's important to look at the actual composition of a mutual fund before buying it. Many people think they are diversifying when they buy funds with different-sounding names. Mutual fund companies are selling similar products and have to differentiate based on names and other advertising. I had a friend recently show me his portfolio, and he wondered why he had lost so much money over the last year when he felt diversified. I looked at his portfolio--almost all the funds held the exact same names (e.g., Google, Chevron, and other well-known big caps). Lesson: always look deep inside the fund, not just at the cover.

Having said that, I've taken my own advice and diversified. I recently opened new positions in Gold (GLD), China (GXC), and KOL (energy ETF).

My main regret so far? I wish I'd waited before going into the Malaysia ETF (EWM) and Indonesia Fund (IF). I've been averaging down, and it's getting expensive.

I continue to believe IF will be a good long-term hold over a 10 year horizon. Indonesia was part of OPEC until a few months ago. It left OPEC after being unable to meet its production targets. Although Indonesia is blessed with natural resources, including crude oil and natural gas, it now imports more oil than it exports. Once Indonesia is better run, gains should come. I also love its national motto: "Unity in diversity."

Malaysia is in an enviable situation with good weather, peaceful citizens, natural resources, and many entrepreneurial residents who understand Chinese culture and can attract investment from China and neighbor Singapore. I am hoping both EWM and IF will be lifetime holds in my portfolio.

What's my outlook for the market? Choppy, lots of sharks still circling around, and any chum thrown in the water may result in a feeding frenzy. In plainer English, the market will probably move sideways due to short sellers still making bets and hedge and mutual funds not moving in to buy stocks just yet. Any bad news may result in a temporary market capitulation. I'm a not a posterboy for the practice, but it's hard to be a "buy and hold" investor these days. My advice? Keep the faith, but diversify.

Open Positions
CCT = +1.82
EWM =-6.42
EWS = -9.31
EZU = -4.39
GLD = 0% (excluded from avg)
GXC = +0.32%
IF = -9.49
KOL = +6.88
SWZ = -6.51
YHOO = -4.69

[Average of "Open Positions": losing/negative average 3.53%]

Closed Positions:
Held more than seven days but less than one year (from May 30, 2008):
CNB = +10.0
EQ = -8.83
GE = -6.4
INTC = 0.0 (excluded from average; insignificant movement)
PFE = -5.5
PNK = -16.7%
PPS = -2.8
VNQ = +2.37 [sold 8/7/08]
WFR = +0.9 (approx; based on partial sales week of 8/4/08 in two separate accounts)
WYE = +2.4%

[Overall Record: Lost an average of 2.82%]

Held less than 7 days:
DUK = (0%, excluded from avg) [8/07/08 - 8/14/08]; GE (1.0%); GOOG (0.8%) [7/28/08 - 7/29/08]; GRMN (-6.2%) [Sold 8/5/08]; ICE (2.0%), MMM (0.5%), MRK (0.1%), NVDA (8.0%) [8/12 to 8/13/08]; PFE (1.3%), SCUR (15%); SO (-0.3%) [Sold 8/5/08]; TTWO (4.3%) [partial sales on 8/5/08, 8/7/08, and 8/8/08]

[Overall Record: Gained an average of 1.68%]

Daytrades:
PFE = +0.5%
GE = +0.5% (Updated on July 14, 2008; bought at 27.15, sold at 27.30)
XLF = +4.3% (Updated on July 15, 2008)

[Overall Record: Gained an average of 1.76%]

Compare to S&P 500: losing/negative 6.92%
[from May 30, 2008 (1385.67) to mid-day August 22, 2008 (1289.80)]

The information on this site is provided for discussion purposes only and does not constitute investing recommendations. Under no circumstances does this information represent a recommendation to buy or sell securities or make any kind of an investment. You are responsible for your own due diligence.

I.O.U.S.A.

Nothing particularly exciting going on these days in the world of economics. The market is going sideways, with not much to kickstart it. Here's an article on the release of an interesting film, I.O.U.S.A.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080822/ap_en_mo/buffett_box_office

Some excerpts:

Peterson said the meager U.S. rate of savings today means that roughly 70 percent of the nation's debts are being bought by foreign investors, and that could create geopolitical and economic problems for the country.

[70%?! Seventy percent of our debt is owned by other countries? &^!$#!]

The U.S. government owed roughly $53 trillion more than it had at the end of the 2007 fiscal year

[53 trillion?! &^!$# &^!$#!]

Sometimes I dream we live in a perfect world, and the new President's Cabinet will include Pete Peterson, David Walker, and Richard Fisher. [crossing fingers]

Property Tax Info, 2006

The link has old data, but still worth a look-see:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22607.html

Even after Prop 13, California is in the top 10 in median real estate taxes paid ($2,510).

The Tax Foundation's research section is fun to browse. I found this report, comparing state spending with federal money inflow:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html

How is New Mexico getting twice as much back as it's paying to D.C.? Also, I assumed California (#43) was getting the worst shake of all, but New Jersey, Nevada, and Connecticut are getting the least back from D.C. relative to the taxes they've paid to D.C. The only state with nothing to complain about? Rhode Island, which pays out a buck and got a buck back from the feds.

Book Excerpt

Saw this in the Atlantic Monthly, and had to share.

William Graebner, in his book, Patty's Got a Gun, talks about consumerism. He explains the last eight years, a time of extended executive power and debt, in one neat paragraph:

[There was] the sense that ordinary people had been conditioned by the public schools and drugged by materialistic consumer affluence into uncritical acceptance of their circumstances.

In other words, pass the soma. Even Mr. Huxley couldn't have said it more concisely.

Yahoo to Google: Et tu?

"Google Faces Defamation Lawsuit in India," read a recent WSJ article. Here is a summary of the article:

A small Indian construction company is demanding Google disclose the name of a person who used its blogging service (blogger.com). A blogger using the name, "Toxic Writer," criticized the Indian construction company, running afoul of local defamation laws. An Indian court ordered Google India to reveal the identity of the blogger. Google's India subsidiary removed the blog, but hasn't yet revealed the identity of the blogger.

Stay tuned... Jerry Yang and Terry Semel must be watching this with no small measure of schaedenfraude.