Yesterday we wrote about the typical American family and their economic struggles. Today we share with you a picture (thanks, Coly) that does a much better job of describing the growing income divide in our country so much better than I ever could!

As I stated yesterday, the movement to defined contribution plans from defined benefit plans has failed, and it will continue to fail, as long as a huge segment of our working population continues to be left behind!

Again, markets seem surprised by weak economic releases for retail sales and inflation.  WHY? It seems that every economic statistic released in the last 1-2 months has proven to be below expectations.  Were these expectations too rosy? Given extremely weak first quarter results, should market participants have been this bullish?

The unfortunate aspect of these inflated expectations is the fact that US pension consultants continue to recommend to their clients a significant underweighting in US fixed income product.  This underweight continues to exacerbate the asset/liability mismatch that has existed since US interest rates fell below the ROA roughly 15 years ago.

As we’ve said on numerous occasions, managing a DB plan is not about generating the highest return, but meeting the promised benefits at the lowest cost.  We are one bear market away from the complete devastation of the public DB system. These plans need to be de-risked now, so that funded status and contribution expense can be stabilized before it is too late.

By the way, US 10-year Treasury yields are once again plummeting, as the bonds are up 23/32nds and it currently yields 2.13%.  So much for rising rates!

In a recent article in the WSJ, titled “Why Trump Won”, a letter to shareholders of M&T Bank was referenced because of the economic picture that it painted for the “typical” American household.  The note was penned by M&T CEO, Robert Wilmers.  There are many shocking statistics in his note that clearly highlight the economic struggles of middle America.

The economic divide in this country continues to grow, and its long-term implications may be profound.  At a time when we are asking American families to do much more with each $ earned – healthcare, education, insurance, retirement, etc. – there isn’t nearly as much to go around as some of our economists might have you believe.

For instance, since 1973, total median household income from all sources, including wages, which comprise more than 80% of income for middle-class families has increased only 13%.  That seems incredible to me, but over the last 44 years median household income has only increased by this little, and in fact, earnings for the typical family peaked in 1999.

Furthermore, the precipitous decline in interest rates, which initially had a positive impact on families as they were able to reduce mortgage payments, has crippled their ability to save for retirement or the initial down payment on a home for first-time buyers, among other savings needs. In fact, interest income has declined by $44 billion or 68% for families earning <$100,000.  Given that a significant percentage of these households collect little in dividend income, their take of a growing dividend income pie has been only $9 billion.

For those families earning more than $100,000, they have seen 95% of the $162 billion growth in dividend income since 2005 enure to their benefit.  As mentioned earlier, the great income divide is growing rapidly.

Regrettably, most American families are still feeling the negative effect from the 2001 and 2008 recessions, as the impact of lost earnings is still being felt. This has lead to only 51% of American households currently feeling as if they are a part of the middle class when back in 2001 63% felt that they were there.

Given the lack of household earnings growth, it is no wonder why the “average” family finds it difficult to fund a defined contribution plan, let alone manage it.  It truly bothers me that low DC balances are looked upon as a sign of American consumerism run amuck, as opposed to truly what it represents, which is the lack of financial resources in the first place.

As a follow-up to our “Crowded Trade” blog post from last week, we offer another potential market top forecast. In a recent article on Bloomberg Markets by Luke Kawa, a Goldman Sachs team led by equity strategist Ben Snider, wrote a note to clients, stating, “Nonetheless, the maturity of the current economic cycle suggests value returns will remain subdued in the near term.”

The article highlighted the fact that Value investing has dramatically underperformed the S&P 500 during the last decade, and they attribute much of the reason to accomodative monetary policy favoring the FANG stocks.  The question becomes, is Value investing truly dead as an investment style?

I sometimes feel as if I’m participating in a remake of the movie “Groundhog Day”.  Having spent 36 years in the investment industry, I have witnessed many equity market cycles, and most times the bottom of a cycle is accompanied by proclamations related to that particular style of management being dead.

As we mentioned the other day, great companies don’t always make for great stocks because valuations do ultimately matter.  Well, that can also be said about finding diamonds in the rough that appear to be poor businesses that offer potentially great value.  It remains critically important to note that these cycles exist, and that it is much better to buy closer to the bottom and sell closer to the top, if possible!

Without sticking my neck out too far, I am fairly comfortable proclaiming that Value investing is not dead!

It is beginning to feel like 1999 all over again.  Prince, who would have been 59 yesterday, penned his song 1999 in 1982.  Little did he know, or any of us for that matter, that a great bull market for U.S. equities would start in August 1982 only to end badly in March 2000.  Much of the reason for the equity collapse back then was the popping of the great technology stock boon (at one point about 34% of the S&P 500’s weight).

Markets move through cycles, often becoming irrational, and leading to valuations that are extraordinarily stretched.  But, “value” is in the eye of the beholder, and there is no exact timeframe when a stock or sector gets too pricey – it just happens.  Well, it is starting to feel like 1999, as we are currently living in an environment in which 5 U.S. technology companies (Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet, and Facebook) have combined to produce 41% of the market capitalization gain of the S&P 500 in 2017.

Now, this is great news if you’ve invested in either an active growth/momentum fund or a passive large capitalization index strategy, but it is likely putting significant pressure on your value managers.  Caution – if you start seeing your value managers begin to invest in these securities, other than perhaps Apple (P/E of 18.5X) use it as a sell discipline, because it is about to hit the fan!

Just as in 1999, we are hearing that things are different today.  Supposedly, the difference today is that these companies are legitimate businesses, big data firms, etc. Is this the same paradigm shift that we were supposed to experience 20 years ago?  Come on! Great businesses don’t necessarily make for great stocks.  Valuation does matter in the long-term, even if it takes a long time to realize that.

DB pension plans pursuing the ROA as their primary objective may appreciate the recent, short-term performance boost from those five stocks, but it won’t help your funded status and contribution expense when the bubble bursts one more time!  It is never a bad time to take some profits. Can one really justify Amazon’s P/E multiple at 189.3 Xs?

Due to a significant surge in non-housing related debt (student loans, credit cards, auto loans, and other), households in the U.S. have amassed a record debt level now topping $12.7 trillion.  Since the great financial crisis it has been student and auto loans that have fueled this growth. Yet, few seem to worry about the long-term implications from this debt hangover, one that a nap and a few asprin won’t cure!

We have seen GDP growth in the last 15 months (1.6% for 2016 and 1.2% for Q1’17) fall below the average growth rate during what has been an anemic recovery since the GFC.  Given that we are a consumer lead economy, it is likely that the debt burden is beginning to impact consumption.Expectations for a robust second quarter seem to be fading, as one weak report after another is released.  US employment would suggest that our economy is performing on all cylinders, but more than 600,000 workers left the labor force last month. We could see a dramatic reduction in the unemployment rate if that pace were to continue.

Expectations for a robust second quarter seem to be fading, as one weak report after another is released.  US employment would suggest that our economy is performing on all cylinders, but more than 600,000 workers left the labor force last month. We could see a dramatic reduction in the unemployment rate if that pace were to continue.

However, my greatest concern is the impact that this debt has on one’s ability to fund a defined contribution plan. Given that real wage growth has been stagnant since roughly 1999, while the cost of medical, housing and education have ratched up significantly, there is little discretionary income available to the “average” worker to feed a retirement account. The failure to do so early (and often) will ahve long-term implications for the account balances that can be amassed.

We’ve frequently written about the impact that the demise of DB plans will have on our labor force. The social and economic implications of our failure to provide an adequate retirement will be grave.  The failure to create higher quality jobs with competitive wages is beginning to take its toll.

For nearly six years, KCS has been banging the drum regarding a retirement crisis unfolding in the U.S., and the primary reason is the demise of the defined benefit plan. We have been railing against traditional asset consultants and actuaries given their unwavering focus on the return on asset assumption (ROA), as if it were the “Holy Grail”.

Our drumming has regrettably fallen on deaf ears! As a result, DB plans in both the public and private sector continue to be frozen and/or terminated. It is currently estimated that only about 14% of the private sector is covered by a DB plan, and many of those participants are in frozen plans. Coverage was once closer to 50% according to the DOL, while at the same time multi-employer plans are seeking relief by reducing benefits to current and future retirees. We find this practice particularly shameful.

KCS has been trying to get plan sponsors to focus more attention on the promise that they’ve made to their participants through the adoption of Ryan ALM’s Custom Liability Index, which would provide greater transparency on a much more frequent basis than the once per year actuarial report. As a reminder, the only reason that these DB plans exist is to meet the promise that was originally made.

Finally, it appears that real change may be coming. I am happy to report that critically important legislation has been drafted, which is currently being presented to members of Congress that might just “save” the pensions for multi-employer participants, without the need to dramatically slash pension benefits. Ryan ALM and KCS (thanks, Ron, for getting us involved) are working together with others to help save these plans. I am not currently at liberty to share more details but will be happy to do so as progress is made in Washington.

It is one thing to bang the drum (many others believe that a crisis is unfolding), but it is an entirely different kettle of fish to actually get involved in creating a unique solution. Both Ron and I are confident that the Ryan ALM implementation is the way forward for Pension America. We need DB pensions in this country because the social and economic consequences of our failure to preserve them will be devastating. However, following the same 50-year-old strategy has proven a devastating failure! Change is needed now!

We are pleased to provide you with the latest edition of the KCS Fireside Chat series.  In this article, KCS’s DC Practice Leader, Dave Murray, discusses several DC related events, with particular focus on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule likely to take effect on June 9th.

As always, we encourage you to reach out to us with any questions that you might have related to this article.  Furthermore, we stand ready to assist you with any of your investment-related needs.

.

We are always so pleased to be able to share with you articles from Charles DuBois, an incredibly talented and tremendously experienced research analyst and fund manager, with whom I had the distinct pleasure to work with and learn from during my tenure at Invesco.  I’m very pleased to say that I continue to learn so much from him on a regular basis.  Chuck’s focus today is on the “entitlement crisis”.

We hear and read, it seems on a daily basis, about the dangers of the Federal public debt.  We are reminded about the looming fiscal crisis.   We are told we are broke, that we are “leaving a burden to our grandchildren” and that we could even become the next Greece.  These views are widely believed not only because of their constant repetition but also because they appear to reflect straightforward accounting as well as our common sense. 

The primary culprit for these concerns is the projected growth of “entitlement spending” as, according to projections, such spending will be consuming an ever increasing share of federal outlays.  With the baby boomers now retiring, this “threat” is now upon us and the situation is usually described as “unsustainable”. Should we worry?

Please click on this link for the balance of Chuck’s excellent article.

“The White House is seeking to slash federal spending by $3.6 trillion over the next decade through steep cuts across most agencies and tough new restrictions on aid to the poor — a dramatic rethinking of the role of government in the American economy”, wrote Ylan Mui, CNBC Corespondent.

The goal of the White House’s 2018 budget is to slash the deficit, but what are the ramifications to the U.S. economy should these budget cuts become reality?

If you are a disciple of MMT (Modern Monetary Theory) you scoff at the suggestion that a draconian reduction in government spending will be a springboard for economic activity.  Charles DuBois, a former colleague of mine while at Invesco, would tell you that “a reduction in the deficit will dramatically reduce private sector income”. Unfortunately, most people think that a reduction in private sector spending “frees up” private sector resources, but, according to Chuck, ” they don’t explain how that exactly works. Worse, no one asks!”

Michael Norman wrote in MMT Trader Update, that the proposed budget is “ridiculous if this is true”. He further explained, “that’s 2% subtracted from GDP each year for 10 years COMPOUNDED!! Do the math…that could be like a 40% contraction in the economy.”

We already have an economy working on only half its cylinders.  How would dramatically reducing government spending, especially in light of the fact that the private sector isn’t reinvesting in new plants, equipment, and/or inventory, be an economic catalyst?

Another recession/depression would crush the stock market, and potentially be the final nail in the coffin of defined benefit plans that cannot afford a significant hit to the asset side of their asset/liability equation.