Dollars and Jens
Wednesday, July 11, 2018
 
Roth vs. traditional retirement plans
I have a lot of work I should be doing, but someone is wrong on the internet:
The chart makes a lot of assumptions, including that each investor contributes $1,000 to either the Roth or traditional IRA, that they are in the 25 percent tax bracket and that there is a seven percent annualized return. And in almost every case, the Roth does better than the traditional, even for older workers.
Okay, this is correct: if you give up $1,000 per year now to put into a retirement account that won't be taxed in the future, you will have more retirement savings than if you give up $750 per year now to put $1,000 into a retirement account that will be taxed in the future, at least if you assume the growth rate of the money exceeds the rate at which you discount your marginal consumption spending. (And boy do they seem to assume that, but that's a harder quibble than the apples-to-oranges comparison they're making here.)

They would be on somewhat firmer ground if, instead of supposing each investor contributed $1,000, they supposed that each investor contributed $5,500: because the dollar amounts of the contribution caps are the same, the effective cap on the Roth is higher than the traditional IRA: you can forego up to $5,500 to a Roth, versus (using the 25% rate) $4,125 for a traditional IRA.  Similarly, if you're going to max out a 401(k), even if you think your tax rate in retirement will be somewhat lower than it is now, it may be worth paying the extra taxes now to avoid not just taxes in retirement but compounding taxes along the way.  Furthermore, if you are likely to save more money using one kind of account than the other (perhaps because of the salience of taxes), there may be behavioral reasons to use the one that will incline you toward better behavior.  If you aren't hitting the caps, though, and you think your tax rate in retirement will be lower than today's, and you compare apples to apples, the Roth is your better bet.

Thursday, February 09, 2017
 
game theory
This might be in part because I'm teaching game theory this semester, but I look at this working paper suggesting that investment has gone down in industries that have become less competitive, and I'm struck by the idea that not only does the optimal level of capital go down if a tacit cartel forms (as production goes down), but that publicly maintaining a low level of capital could be useful in keeping a tacit cartel together; underinvesting is a commitment device, making it hard and costly to ramp up production should there be an otherwise profitable opportunity to deviate from the arrangement.

Friday, June 10, 2016
 
float
If you don't read Matt Levine, I don't understand why not; if you do, then you probably have some awareness of Saudi Arabia's build-up to doing an IPO on its massive state oil company, even if you haven't yet read today's column.
A $150 billion initial public offering would be by far the biggest ever; Bloomberg's league tables show about $176 billion in total global equity offerings so far in 2016. And if Saudi Arabia is selling oil shares, who is buying? "There is no guarantee there will be sufficient demand from investors to soak up all the shares," and messing this one up would be many times more embarrassing than messing up, say, the Facebook IPO.
Note that the $150 billion figure itself is only for 5% of the company; the expectation is that Saudi Arabia could retain a 95% share and get $150 billion for the rest of it.  The purpose of the funds is diversification; the plan is to take the $150 billion and turn around and invest it in like Baidu or niobium mines or Caterpillar or something.

I expect that the plan would also be to later sell more of the company, and I kind of wonder whether they picked 5% because $150 billion is the very largest initial deal they think could get pulled off.  I kind of think, though, that they ought to halve it, or maybe even go to 1% or something.  You really only need it to be large enough to create a liquid market in the shares, at which point you can sell more shares into that market later or even directly swap shares for other investments.  You want the initial float to be big enough that you can do those later deals (and maybe $30 billion would leave the market too thin to absorb what you're planning to do later), but it seems like trying to find that much cash among IPO investors when you're not really looking for cash so much as to create your own currency (viz. the shares with which you will purchase other investments) creates a difficulty that at least in principle could be avoided.

Thursday, December 17, 2015
 
FOMC plumbing
The FOMC yesterday asserted that it will be raising interest rates today. I mean, probably they will; the first place to watch the progress of the implementation is where they post gross statistics of the reverse repo facility; I think the auction ends around 1:15 Eastern Time, and don't know how long it will take for the results to be posted there. What everyone then wants to see is whether the actual Fed Funds rate overnight falls in that target 25–50 bp range, and, if not, how far on which side. Tomorrow's reverse repo operations will be that much more interesting if they miss the range tonight.

Thursday, October 15, 2015
 
positive interest rates
Traditionally the reason a central bank raises interest rates is to reduce financing activity that supports "aggregate demand" that might lead to inflation. Inflation and its expectations seem to be low — below the official 2% target for quite a while — which makes me at least cautious about this, and yet I support an interest rate hike at the next FOMC meeting. Here is a smattering of reasons why:
The recurring theme is mostly that moving away from zero when we aren't in a hurry to raise rates leaves more flexibility to handle the unexpected than raising rates when we are in a hurry would.  It should be clear from the reasons that I'm not proposing or expecting that we begin an unbroken string of 25 bp hikes at each meeting for the next two years; if we had two such hikes and saw a slight uptick in inflation and the participation rate, I would support holding rates there for a while until we got a stronger signal that more sustained inflation was coming, even if it might allow some corners of the market to collect risky securities at unsafe leverage.

Friday, September 11, 2015
 
options and hedge funds
The original idea of "hedge" funds is that they're hedged; it's not exactly that they're "market neutral", though it can be that, and many of them claim to be.  (I expect somebody has gone back and looked at the correlation of the performance of some hedge funds for which they were able to get data and the performance of, say, the S&P 500, but I have no idea whether they actually got a result that was more or less zero or not.)  Hedge-fund performance, though, is often compared to the S&P 500, and I imagine the average hedge-fund investor might be slightly miffed over long periods of time not to beat the S&P 500, though over three to five years in a strong bull market the more sophisticated ones might not be.  In any case, what the relevant comparison is is a crucial part of the description of a particular hedge fund; in a bear market, a fund trying to beat the S&P 500 is doing better than a fund with the same performance that is supposed to be market neutral, while if they have the same performance during a bull market, the latter is doing better.

Over some time frame, though — I have an intuitive sense it's 3 to 5 years, but wouldn't be shocked if that were very wrong — if you were to buy an option (with a running rather than up-front payment) on a basket option paying the best of the S&P 500 (or some broader index), treasury bills, and some long bond index, the market-implied price on that option is going to be on the order of 100bp or something — in particular, is going to be low enough that no hedge fund would want to admit being unable to generate that much in excess return.  If you were going to do this, you might need to have even stricter than usual redemption rules to avoid adverse selection problems, but perhaps a "no-regret target hedge fund" would be attractive to some group of hedge fund investors.

(As a practical matter, it occurs to me that perhaps the "long bond index" should be "whatever we can hedge with CBOT bond futures", which is to say cheapest-to-deliver 15+y treasury bonds, which maybe aren't much of an index.  I imagine the hedge fund would largely view generating alpha and synthetically constructing the option as separate tasks.)

Tuesday, August 25, 2015
 
finance: prices and fluctuations
The stock market has been doing something, and if you care you can go read about that elsewhere, but it has led to some discussion of why prices of financial assets bob around at times, and even the relatively informed discussion seems a bit narrow-minded.  My own research, such as it is, is based on value that assets gain from liquidity or other effects related to heterogeneous agents, but this post is going to eschew even that, working simply from the basic Lucas asset pricing model that everyone knows and loves:
Price = total expected discounted dividends
Robert Shiller somewhat famously (in certain circles) observed several decades ago that dividends are much less volatile than price, and concluded that markets are irrational.  (This summary is only slightly unfair to him, and, to be clear, I agree with him that markets aren't perfectly rational, but that's quite a leap from the evidence he provided.)  When I first saw that, my thought was, "it's not the dividends that are fluctuating; it's the expectations".  It turns out that many — I perhaps overly associate this with John Cochrane, and have been convinced myself now to join their camp — believe that fluctuations in price are driven by that term in between: discounted.

From this last point of view, then, a drop in the stock market is a reflection primarily of investors demanding a higher return than they were demanding before.  One of the reasons for demanding higher returns is higher perceived risk, which can get recursive for agents with short time horizons: if that risk isn't a risk that dividends will be weaker than expected in the distant future, but a risk that other people will be demanding higher returns when you're looking to cash out your position, then it's hard not to imagine that there are likely to be multiple equilibria.  Another reason for demanding a higher return, though, is that it is expected that new investment options will become more attractive in the near future; this especially might mean that the Federal Reserve is expected to raise interest rates, such that short-term bond investments will be more attractive than they have been in the last seven years.

I will note that long-term bonds tend to go up (their demanded yield down) on days when stocks go down and vice versa — expected risk-free returns in general can't be driving day-to-day moves in both bond markets and stock markets, so your very short term fluctuations, insofar as they're "rational", must involve some changes in expectations, risk premia, etc.  In general the arguments for market efficiency work better the longer the time-frame, and daily movements are going to be driven almost entirely by entities that respond to market fluctuations on a daily basis.  If you're wondering why the stock market has been expensive, compared to its recent earnings and historical price to earnings ratios, you can't ignore the yields available in the bond market, and if you think bond prices are going to come down in the next couple of years, you should probably be expecting stock prices to at least stop their climb.


Powered by Blogger