My afternoon train reading:

• Here Are Some Issues With That Report About How The Unemployment Rate Was Faked Before The 2012 Election (Business Insider)
• What will you spend in retirement? (Fidelity)
• Why you need a healthy amount of uncertainty in an economy (Quartz)
• Lars Peter Hansen, the Nobel Laureate in the Middle (NY Times)
Mauboussin: On Complex Adaptive Systems (Compounding My Interests)
• Supply and Demand: A Market Analysis of Chicago’s Heroin Trade, and its Residual Criminal Aspects, Written by a Junkie (New City)
• U.S. Inequality in Six Charts (New Yorker)
• Bartlett: Medicare Part D: Republican Budget-Busting (Economix)
• Here’s what’s wrong with Rand Paul’s ‘Audit the Fed’ bill (Washington Post)
• NASA spin-off technologies (Wikipedia

What are you reading?


U.S. REITs Are On Sale 
Source: BCA

Category: Financial Press

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

15 Responses to “10 Tuesday PM Reads”

  1. PeterR says:

    Sobering charts in the New Yorker article about (non)Upward Mobility. The concentration of red in the Southeast kinda looks like a fire smoldering?

    Also, Santa’s Sleigh is running into the Bollinger Bands FWIW.

  2. hue says:

    The Gettysburg Address (Abraham Lincoln Online) Four score and seven years (and 150 years) ago … (PBS Video)

  3. “One part of the new insurance program is veiled in secrecy. Lawmakers may allow some or all of their employees to keep their current insurance by declaring that they do not work in the “official office” of a member of Congress. Members do not have to disclose such decisions, though some have voluntarily done so. . . . Thus, for example, a spokesman for Representative Darrell Issa, Republican of California, said the congressman had decided that all of his staff members, including those who work in his personal office, could stay in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and would not have to go into an exchange.”

    For Lawmakers, a Gold-Plated Insurance Exchange (NYTimes)

  4. Bomber Girl says:

    I too found the New Yorker article interesting. My “gut” (and some data) tells me that income inequality is bad for growth and a real threat to the “american way of life” or at least the life we believe we can have. But, like our dear director of TBP blog, would love to see more data/cases (a point the author of the article makes) to make the case more concrete.

  5. swag says:

    US REITs may be well off their highs, but their valuations (Price/Funds-From-Operations) are still pretty damned high, and their yields are pretty damned low.

    On sale? Don’t think so.



  6. icantdance says:

    Someone please explain the “REIT are on sale” graph.

  7. Francisco Bandres de Abarca says:

    Ugh. This ‘REITs are on sale’ bit appears to be a rather spurious correlation. The argument is that the price of the S&P REIT index should jump to fill the gap indicated by the higher ‘months to lift-off’, currently just a hair above 20 (RH). It is clearly an argument for a short-term trade–a trade which has not necessarily worked in the past (e.g., the two gaps in late 2012).

    As the right-hand scale must eventually approach zero (unless one believes that the ‘lift-off’ never occurs), then one would presume that US S&P REITs divided by the broad S&P 500 index approaches zero as well. I should think that alternate valuation metrics may prove preferable. Maybe it is just that I have been witness to too many false narratives.

    Francisco’s phrase du jour: “Corruption is the new black.” Ah, who am I kiddin’? ‘Twas ever thus.

  8. DeDude says:

    Here is an excellent explanation about debt/austerity and interest rates.

    It should be understandable to the average high-school graduate.

  9. intlacct says:

    re: Fidelity:

    I guess this qualifies as ‘non-scare’ tactics.

    There is substantial evidence that people way over-estimate their costs in retirement. Like, every survey kind of substantial evidence. Within retiree cohorts, there is variation in income/spending outcomes, but for the folks with a chunk of change at Fidelity, the news is very good. This scares Fidelity. It should not scare retirees.

    • Do you have some sources for that substantial evidence?

      My understanding was the opposite — that people fail to understand their full retirement costs, including health care. Curious as to what you can show.