Clunker-nomics

Email this post Print this post
By Barry Ritholtz - August 3rd, 2009, 12:15PM

David R. Kotok co-founded Cumberland Advisors in 1973 and has been its Chief Investment Officer since inception. He holds a B.S. in Economics from The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, an M.S. in Organizational Dynamics from The School of Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania, and a Masters in Philosophy from the University of Pennsylvania. Mr. Kotok’s articles and financial market commentary have appeared in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Barron’s, and other publications. He is a frequent contributor to CNBC programs. Mr. Kotok is also a member of the National Business Economics Issues Council (NBEIC), the National Association for Business Economics (NABE), the Philadelphia Council for Business Economics (PCBE), and the Philadelphia Financial Economists Group (PFEG).

~~~

Clunker-nomics
August 2, 2009

Genesis 1:31 says “And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.“ A few millennia later, we find that the world’s most popular book can be applied metaphorically to the US House of Representatives, as it labors in the creation of clunker-nomics.

The first billion voted by the Congress for the $4500 clunker rebate program was exhausted in 6 days. Practicing for deity status, the House beheld and determined “it was very good.” They immediately passed a $2 billion addition. That bill now goes to the Senate, which will pass something similar, and then to a conference committee to resolve some differences about rules. We expect additional funding will be forthcoming quickly. Congress loves to spend and Americans love to receive.

In the spirit of Genesis, Adam and Eve American, otherwise affectionately known as John and Jane Doe, recognize a good deal when they see one. They had an old clunker worth a few hundred. Suddenly they can exchange it for $4500 if they buy the new one now. The rest they can finance at very low interest rates, thanks to the Federal Reserve and the Treasury for extending TARP and other funds so that lenders can offer them liberal terms. They seized the moment – who can blame them?

This will boost short-term activity in the US. Neil Soss of Credit Suisse estimates, “Our math suggests that vehicle sales could spike in July, perhaps to a run rate near 12.5 million units (at a seasonally adjusted annual rate) from the 9.6mn average of Q2.” He adds that “in response to cash-for-clunkers … the personal savings rate will drop sharply in the next months, even as the longer run trend is still headed higher.” That will ramp up auto production in the 3rd quarter. Neil concludes, “As a consequence, we are revising up our Q3 real GDP forecast to 2.0% (from 1.3%) and our Q4 forecast to 2.5% (from 2.0%).

Okay. We know that older and fuel-inefficient cars are supposed to be scrapped. That is supposed to be an environmental improvement. And we know that the United Auto Workers like this stimulus, for obvious reasons. So do the government-owned or government-sponsored auto manufacturers. The last private firm, Ford, will benefit, too.

Does the clunker stimulus result in enough gain to offset the net present value of the perpetual cost to finance it? Fair question? We think so. Is there an answer? Maybe, but the proof is very difficult to establish. It you are interested in this discussion, invite a few friends over for a beer and talk about it. But make sure the beer is brewed in America by the United Beer Brewer Workers. And when you toast, toast Ford and be a patriot.

Did anyone ask how many of these car sales are being “borrowed from the future?” We didn’t see it in the Congressional commentary. If it was there, it did not influence the political decision.

Has anyone looked at what we have done in a macro sense? We will try.

The United States borrowed 1 billion dollars. It is unlikely to ever pay it back. The annual interest will add $50 million to the federal budget each and every year, forever. We are assuming it is financed today with 30-year Treasury bonds. The additional $2 billion of borrowed clunker money will add another $100 million in interest. So clunker-nomics has committed the nation to make this interest payment forever.

Practicing an industrial policy by inserting government into a mixed economy is the new America. No one measures the exchange of short-term gain being substituted for longer-term taxes or inflation or debt-burdened slower growth. Those economists who are full believers in expectations analysis argue that the market will immediately adjust prices to reflect this exchange. Maybe so in the mathematical models that they use to justify that argument.

We think this expectations analysis fails in the real world. Adam and Eve American are not economists. They make their decisions for their individual benefit and in terms they can understand and assess. They know what a $4500 free gift is. They understand it. They do not deal with trillions of dollars; they do not conduct ever-increasing auctions of Treasury notes and bonds; they do not deal in foreign exchange and reserve transfers. That is not their fault. The have daily lives to live and they are facing their own struggles.

So they delegate some of these borrowing and spending decisions to the Congress because they have no other choice. In the House the long term is limited to the two years until the next election cycle is faced. So the House will easily exchange $1 billion in spending for $50 million in added budget interest.

Thus we have an asymmetric exchange. We gratify now; we borrow to do it; we defer the day of reckoning; it grows bigger and bigger but seems to be perpetually deferred. Every once in a while a crisis unfolds and the system fails, as it did with Lehman Brothers last September. That triggers a new round of upward ratcheting of this asymmetric system.

When does it end? First question without an answer? Will the end be fire, or ice? Also, no answer. What should we do to protect ourselves? Much harder, but there are some answers. Diversify worldwide. Seek a mix of investing to protect wealth. Lastly, enjoy life and the weekend in the spirit of Genesis. Rest on the seventh day, if you can.

And remember that God gives you only so many days on the planet but doesn’t count the ones you spend fishing. We will wink at CNBC viewers on Friday, August 7 from Leen’s Lodge at the annual Shadow Fed fishing retreat, where 35 of us will debate and dissect asymmetric information and deficit finance. For now, we hope your seventh day is restful for you.

David R. Kotok, Chairman and Chief Investment Officer, email: david.kotok@cumber.com

Comments

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data, ability to repeat discredited memes, and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Also, be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor even implied. Any irrelevancies you can mention will also be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

7 Responses to “Clunker-nomics”

  1. Pat G. Says:

    I read where you can trade in a Ford F150 that’s a few years old which got 12MPG for a new & “improved” Ford 150 that gets 15MPG and qualify for the CARS rebate. Is that the type of fuel economy we’re trying to promote?

  2. Brendan Says:

    I don’t know that I really buy the greatness of this program either, but this is a pretty weak analysis, if you ask me. I find it hard to believe that not a single cent of revenue gets recycled to the government as a result of this. Maybe the auto companies get a freebee this year because they have net losses, but surely those auto workers that would have otherwise been laid off pay income taxes. I’m guessing the scrap yards are profitable, and will also be giving back to Uncle Sam as a result of their new-found business. And how about those sales commissions, those aren’t taxable? What about the banks financing these cars?

    “The United States borrowed 1 billion dollars. It’s unlikely to ever pay it back.” If I’m doing my math right, at least some of that is getting paid back almost immediately, and much more by next April. Will this program not produce a single cent of additional taxable economic activity? If it were, then the interest payments wouldn’t be on the full amount. Let me guess, this is only true in cases of tax cuts for the rich where the wonders of trickle-down economics happen; if a government program is somehow involved in the trickling down – poof it stops working like that. Personally, I think there are better ways to have spent that money, but that’s not the argument being made here.

  3. Moss Says:

    I find it sickening when religion is used for political or even weak economic discourse. It really is quite clear that nothing that the ‘government’ (a.k.a. the Obama administration) does or will do during a Democratically controlled time frame will be held in high regard by some.

  4. aupanner Says:

    Don’t over complicate it. The program is intended to clear out the lots so that the Auto companies can re-start the manufacturing pipeline. Simple. It’s too bad they refer to “green initiatives” etc., because all that does is weaken the legitimate conservationist effort. It’s b.s. this program is designed to incentivize people to buy new cars that are piling up in lots.

    The economics of it are complicated, for sure. I mean, what will happen to the small mechanics out there who now have fewer clunkers requiring their care? What will happen when all these people buy cars, and the dust settles, and we’re back to the situation where demand is gone – because let’s face it – it’s inevitable that the road will and should have more clunkers on it. There is no good reason why the average age of a car on the road is 3 years. Ok, I made that number of – I don’t know what the average of the car on the road is, but it should be older. Driving older cars is far more green than scrapping them when they work and buying new marginally more fuel efficient ones.

    This isn’t even a re-distribution of wealth. It’s just a jolt to the Auto industry.

    I don’t understand why people don’t talk about the fact that the consumer is probably still getting a bad deal because most car sellers are marking their cars down more than $4,500 any way. Just for kicks as a way to do some anecdotal research, in June I went shopping for a Ford Pickup and the one I looked at was retailing for $32k. They asked me to buy it for $24k. I walked out, because I was only researching. But they’ve called me every week since. I’m assuming I could get it for $20k if I offered cash. But with this program, they’ll probably tell the American suckers who think they’re recognizing a ‘good deal’ that they can take off a whole $4500 off the $32k.

  5. FromLori Says:

    Why don’t we give everyone $4,500 to buy new appliances or for a down payment on a home? Free money for everyone whee your children and grandchildren can pick up the tab for the smelly ones payback to the auto industry.

    Keep that unemployment rollin on extend to the End! We can afford it right?

    Federal tax revenues plummeting

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/08/03/national/w092208D68.DTL&tsp=1

  6. TheTradingReport » Blog Archive » David Kotok: Clunker-nomics Says:

    [...] I absolutely was thrilled with this piece that uses the Car for Clunkers program as the proxy but speaks to what America has become. Keep in mind the actual costs for Car for Clunkers is but a speck on a pebble in the ocean. The cost is not *the* issue, it is the philosophy – explode this program over all the others and extrapolate out over an entire generation of IOUs. Bravo Mr. Kotok. (hat tip to the Big Picture) [...]

  7. Pat Shuff Says:

    To make an omelet you have to crush a few clunkers.
    How exactly does this broken window fallacy differ from
    vandalism? Audacity, yes. Hope, no.

59 queries. 0.208 seconds.