Morning in Arizona

Morning in Arizona
Rainbows over Canyonlands - Dave Stoker

The Headline Animator

Showing posts with label dynamic scoring. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dynamic scoring. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 26, 2017

Devil in the Detail

Financial Review

Devil in the Detail


DOW – 21 = 20,975
SPX – 1 = 2387
NAS – 0.27 = 6025
RUT + 8 = 1419 (record close)
10 Y – .02 = 2.31%
OIL – .41 = 49.15
GOLD + 5.00 = 1270.00

Here’s the good news – it wasn’t a big down day.

Today was the big reveal on the president’s tax plan. White House chief economic advisor Gary Cohn and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin presented the plan in a briefing to reporters at the White House. It largely echoes the proposal Trump outlined as a candidate and did not include some key details.

Trump’s plan will cut the number of income tax brackets from seven to three, with a top rate of 35 percent and lower rates of 25 percent and 10 percent. It is not clear what income ranges will fall under those brackets. The plan would exempt the first $24,000 of income from taxation.

It would also double the standard deduction. It would eliminate tax deductions, with only a few exceptions, including the mortgage interest, retirement savings and charitable contribution deductions. Trump’s plan would also repeal the alternative minimum tax and 3.8 percent Obamacare taxes.

The plan would get rid of the estate tax. The estate tax affects only a very small portion of Americans – individuals with a net worth above $5 million, or $10 million for a married couple, who otherwise do no planning. Eliminating the Alternative minimum and the estate tax are largely benefit wealthy taxpayers.

The proposal will cut the corporate tax rate to 15 percent from 35 percent. The White House said there will be a “one-time tax” on the trillions of dollars held by corporations overseas. However, Mnuchin said the rate for that tax has yet to be determined but the White House is “working with the House and Senate” on a repatriation rate, saying it would be “very competitive.”

Markets were expecting a lot of specifics and a specific rate on repatriation and they didn’t get it. Repatriation might have limited impact on the dollar. At Apple, which has the most overseas cash among S&P 500 members, more than 90 percent of its $216 billion stash is in US dollars.

For Microsoft, the second-largest holder of money abroad, dollar-denominated bonds alone make up more than 60 percent of total cash, based on securities filings. Repatriation could impact stock prices, as many companies would use repatriated dollars for share buybacks.

There are a few problems, and one of the first you may have noticed is that there would be a big difference between the proposed rates for individuals and for corporations. Any individual taxed above 15% would be sorely tempted to be taxed at the corporate rate.

Mnuchin also said the U.S. would go to a “territorial” tax system. Though further details were not forthcoming, such systems typically exclude most or all the income that businesses earn overseas. The proposal didn’t include any mention of a border-adjusted tax.

Mnuchin would not answer if the plan would be “revenue neutral,” meaning whether it would result in a larger budget deficit. He contended that it would “pay for itself with growth and with … reduction of different deductions and closing loopholes.”

Mnuchin’s argument is that tax cuts will lead people to work harder, but economic theory is ambiguous on this point, as some people will maintain their same after-tax income while working less. And, of course, most people can’t tweak their work schedules like this anyway when the tax code changes. “Accounting for the economic growth” allegedly generated by a tax plan is called “dynamic scoring”.

The Tax Policy Center is known for careful, state-of-the-art analysis, and their early analysis finds that the tax-cut plan losing between $6.15 trillion and $5.97 trillion in revenue over 10 years. If the revenue loss means less investment in public goods, including both productivity-boosting physical and human capital, growth could be slower.

Mnuchin claims the tax cuts would result in 3% growth. Getting to 3% growth and staying there would require a burst of productivity growth that’s never been seen in this country before. The administration is banking on tax cuts and deregulation to deliver that productivity revolution, but there’s no historical evidence that either policy can deliver the magnitude of investment that would be needed.

There is no historical precedent that confirms tax cuts create strong growth that could make this tax cut plan revenue neutral. Investment should have boomed when tax rates were low, and faltered when Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton raised the top marginal rate in the early 1990s. But that didn’t happen: Investment increased in the mid-1980s as the economy improved, then faded even as tax rates were lowered further.

Investment boomed after the Bush-Clinton tax hikes, and increased again after the tax cuts early in President George W. Bush’s first term. It appears investment is driven largely by economic forces, not by marginal tax rates. The tax rate isn’t totally irrelevant, but it’s not that important either.

The plan that has been announced today is very aggressive, and unlikely to pass, at least in its current form; which is basically a rough draft.

There was a Q&A session with Mnuchin and Cohn following the presentation. They could not answer some basic questions such as: what is the overall size of the tax plan in dollars? What would it mean to a median American family of four making about $60,000? – How about their tax bill? The response was that they were working on details. Of course, the devil is in the details, which means that any chance of timely change in the tax code will be wicked hard to pass.

The House Freedom Caucus, a group of conservatives who were instrumental in blocking President Trump’s plan to repeal the Affordable Care Act last month, gave its approval today to a new, more conservative version. The bill has a chance to get through the House, possibly as early as Friday or Saturday.

It was not clear whether conservative support for the revised legislation would be matched by losses in the center. The latest proposal would allow states to obtain waivers from federal mandates that insurers cover certain “essential health benefits,” like emergency services, maternity care, and mental health and substance abuse services.

The new plan would still allow an age-rating scheme that allows older people to be charged more, and would dramatically inflate costs for older low-income people. It would permit states to waive requirements that insurers charge the same rates for people the same age, essentially ending the current ban on rejecting coverage for pre-existing conditions if state governments establish high-risk pools where sick people can purchase health care.

While the law doesn’t allow insurers to bar coverage for sick and elderly people, it doesn’t limit how much they can be charged, which means they can be functionally priced out of coverage.

The White House is considering a draft executive order to withdraw the United States from the North American Free Trade Agreement. The possible executive order, first reported by Politico, sent stocks and currencies falling in Mexico and Canada.

It was not clear what the language of the executive order would be, or what steps would come next. But an executive order could start a required six-month notification period for withdrawal, during which time talks on renegotiation could be pursued.

The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Ajit Pai, has outlined a sweeping plan to loosen the government’s oversight of high-speed internet providers. Pai, said high-speed internet service should no longer be treated like a public utility with strict rules, as it is now. Instead, he said, the industry should largely be left to police itself.

The existing rules are meant to prevent broadband providers like AT&T and Comcast from giving special treatment to any streaming videos, news sites and other content. The rules were intended to ensure an open internet, meaning that no content could be blocked by broadband providers and that the internet would not be divided into pay-to-play fast lanes for internet and media companies that can afford it and slow lanes for everyone else.

Pai said he was generally supportive of the idea behind net neutrality but said the rules went too far and were not necessary for an open internet. The new plan could include only voluntary commitments by broadband companies. Consumer groups and tech companies have warned of a legal challenge. The current net neutrality rules were affirmed by a federal appeals court, which could put an extra burden on Mr. Pai to justify his changes.

The Trump administration hosted senators for an extraordinary White House briefing on North Korea. All 100 senators were invited and transported in buses for the unprecedented, classified briefing. President Trump’s secretary of state, secretary of defense, top general, and national intelligence director outlined the North’s escalating nuclear capabilities and US response options. The briefing team was to meet later with House members in the Capitol.

Congress inched toward a deal to fund the government through September but was preparing to possibly extend a midnight Friday deadline to wrap up negotiations and avoid an imminent government shutdown. The one-week extension would give leading Republicans and Democrats “a little breathing room” to finish negotiations.

US Steel reported a first quarter loss of 83 cents per share. Analysts were expecting a profit of 35 cents per share. US Steel also cut its 2017 profit outlook in half. The stock plunged 27% in very heavy volume; its worst day of trading since it went public 26 years ago.

Paypal posted earnings of 44 cents per share on revenue of $2.98 billion, up from a year earlier and beating estimates. Shares rose 6% in after-hours trade.

Thursday, April 20, 2017

Rule the World

Financial Review

Rule the World

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 13:15 — 7.6MB)

DOW + 184 = 20,589
SPX + 18 = 2357
NAS + 57 = 5920
RUT + 13 = 1381
10 Y + .05 = 2.25%
OIL – .02 = 50.42
GOLD + 1.40 = 1282.70

Each day this week, the Dow has posted triple digit moves: 2 down, 2 up.  The Dow is still about 100 points below its 50-day moving average. The S&P 500 broke above its 50-day moving average intraday but closed just a fraction below the trendline; and that is why it is called resistance.

Still volume increased today, so we wait for confirmation tomorrow. If you are looking for leadership, the Nasdaq Composite closed at a record high. Bonds slipped today, pushing yields on the 10-year not back up to 2.25%, which still seems low, considering the Fed claims the economy is strong enough to support higher rates.

Since the last FOMC meeting, a key inflation indicator fell for the first time since January 2010, the March nonfarm payrolls report significantly missed Wall Street expectations. Today the Labor Department reported initial claims for state unemployment benefits increased 10,000 to a seasonally adjusted 244,000 for the week ended April 15.

Other data showed factory activity in the mid-Atlantic region slowed in April amid a pullback in new orders and shipments. The Atlanta Fed now expects the economy to show growth of just 0.5 percent for the first quarter.

On top of that, President Trump’s pro-growth agenda has hit a bit of a wall in Congress. Tax reform was supposed to follow closely on the heels of healthcare reform, but repeal and replace suffered a crash and burn. But today, repeal and replace is back on the table. GOP moderates and conservatives are nearing a deal on health care that in theory could get the Republican alternative to the Affordable Care Act out of the House and over to the Senate.

The changes also might move Republicans even further away from passage ― no one really knows. Leadership is expected to discuss the amendment on a conference call this Saturday with GOP members, but public opinion might also affect the landscape.

Republicans are trying to say their amendment will cover people with pre-existing conditions ― because, first, the legislation still claims those people can’t be denied coverage, and second, because there will be high-risk pools for those people if insurance costs dramatically go up for them. The reality, however, is that insurers would be able to effectively deny coverage by pricing sick people out of the market.

Those concerns may be significant enough that the deal does not win over moderates. The concessions also might not be enough for some conservatives, who have expressed issue with Republicans establishing an advance refundable tax credit to help pay for insurance. The amendment wouldn’t seem to address the big concerns moderates have expressed ― like raising the cap on how much insurers can charge seniors or cutting $880 billion from Medicaid.

With Republicans effectively going back on their repeated promises to guarantee coverage for people with pre-existing conditions, the amendment could lose several Republicans who already supported the legislation. In short, even though the Tuesday Group and the Freedom Caucus think they have a deal, Republicans writ large might have nothing.

Once social programs are passed into law, it is famously difficult to undo them. But the fact that the GOP has evolved into a cross-class coalition with an increasingly blue-collar flavor is clearly playing a role. If Republican lawmakers are going to replace Obamacare, they’re going to have to make sure that it covers almost as many people, because if it doesn’t, there’s going to be hell to pay from newly minted Republicans.

The GOP 2.0 version of the American Health Care Act has about as much appeal as the original AHCA, or maybe less. It’s still a big tax cut for the rich, a hit to pocketbooks of older and more rural voters, and less generous than what recipients had received under Obamacare. At least that is the best estimate now – there is no legislative text at this time.

We don’t yet know if version 2.0 has fixed some of the earlier problems and if the fix is enough to flip votes. And if it crashes and burns again, it won’t inspire much confidence in the administration’s tax reform plans.

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said the Trump administration is close to bringing forward “major tax reform.” Mnuchin, who this week backed off his earlier goal of passing tax reform by August, said the White House will unveil a plan “very soon.”

Time for a quick trip down memory lane. A tax reform plan was supposedly imminent when President Trump met with airline executives at the White House on Feb. 9. “We’re way ahead of schedule,” Trump said then. “We’re going to be announcing something, I would say, over the next two or three weeks that will be phenomenal in terms of tax.”

Nearly 10 weeks later, Trump told a crowd in Wisconsin on Tuesday a plan was “coming along very well” and would be out “very soon.” So, today Mnuchin got the memo and stated tax reform is close. Except, it probably isn’t. First, lawmakers will need to figure out if tax reform is going to increase the deficit; that means it needs to be scored by the Congressional Budget office.

On the sidelines of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank spring meetings in Washington today, Treasury Secretary Mnuchin said: “Some of the lowering in (tax) rates is going to be offset by less deductions and simpler taxes, but the majority of it will be made up by what we believe is fundamentally growth and dynamic scoring.”

Dynamic scoring is a little-known government forecasting method that skirts Senate fiscal rules by using economic modeling to predict changes in revenues resulting from economic growth spurred by new tax and economic policies.

In other words, tax cuts will spur such strong growth, in the range of 3% to 4%, that the government will take in more revenue, even at lower rates. If, however, economic growth does not zoom forward, the result would be a massive hit to the deficit and higher debt burdens.

Eliminating tax deductions and credits is easy to talk about but difficult to do because each one has a coalition in Congress or an interest group or industry fighting to keep it there. For individuals, the House GOP blueprint would eliminate nearly all personal deductions and credits and replace them with a significantly increased standard deduction and flatter, lower tax brackets. Instead of taking the standard deduction, people could choose to deduct mortgage interest and charitable contributions.

Reducing the tax benefits for making donations to charity would stir up religious groups, however. And eliminating or reducing the benefit of owning rather than renting a home by changing the mortgage interest deduction would be vigorously opposed by powerful lobbies for home builders and realtors.

Eliminating an existing deduction for state and local taxes, for example, would mean taxpayers in states with high state income or property taxes, such as California, New York and New Jersey, would get a much smaller benefit, if any, from an increased standard deduction and lower rates.

The House Ways and Means Committee may have a hearing next week on “border adjustment,” a change to corporate taxes that is a key piece of a “blueprint” unveiled in June by the House GOP because it is expected to raise $1 trillion to offset lost revenue from lowering corporate rates.

The border adjustment tax or BAT relies on a massive increase in the strength of the dollar to offset what is essentially a tariff. The BAT would levy a 20 percent tax on imported goods and would allegedly raise over a trillion dollars of revenue over the next decade. A better name might be the Consumer Tax.

If the dollar ever did show about a 25% increase needed to offset the tax, the result would make American exports ridiculously expensive – essentially shutting down exports. If the dollar does not show a massive increase, the cost of the BAT would be passed on to consumers. Additionally, a BAT would lead to fewer jobs and higher unemployment. Increased consumer costs and fewer exports would translate into more Americans out of work.

Beyond that, nobody really knows what tax reform is being proposed. Only after the plan is finalized can the debate begin. There is a chance tax reform could get quick approval. Keep in mind that Republicans could make use of the budget reconciliation process to pass a tax bill on a party-line vote if they’re so inclined. No, the problem is that while Republicans might agree on the virtues of tax-cutting in theory, they’re finding it awfully difficult to craft a tax overhaul they can agree on in practice.

Turns out that tax reform is complicated and good tax reform might be too much to expect, and the fear of this daunting challenge may require compromise, and the easiest form of compromise in Washington would be “corporate-only tax reform”, after all, corporate lobbyists would be more than happy to write the legislation for the legislators.

Beware if you hear the president and members of Congress claiming, in the days ahead, that corporate-only reform is the way to go because it’s “clean,” “simple” and “good for jobs.” Probably true. But corporate-only tax relief is also cronyism. It’s Wall Street over Main Street.

Meanwhile, Congress is on recess; they return to Washington next week. Congress faces a looming deadline by April 28: funding the federal government. If no new funding bill is passed by next Friday, parts of the federal government will shut down.

The White House and Congress are considering passage of a one-week extension on funding to hash out a more considered funding bill and possibly give the House time to take up the AHCA. This is the one thing Washington is good at – kick the can down the road.