Closing the Sausage Factory

By John Mauldin

“Bureaucracy destroys initiative. There is little that bureaucrats hate more than innovation, especially innovation that produces better results than the old routines. Improvements always make those at the top of the heap look inept. Who enjoys appearing inept?”

– Frank Herbert, Heretics of Dune

“Economies naturally grow. People innovate as they go through life. They also look around at what others are doing and adopt better practices or tools. They invest, accumulating financial, human and physical capital.

Something is deeply wrong if an economy is not growing, because it means these natural processes are impeded. That is why around the world, since the Dark Ages, lack of growth has been a signal of political oppression or instability. Absent such sickness, growth occurs.”

– Adam Posen, “Debate: The Case for Slower Growth”

Today’s letter will be shorter than usual, because I’m at Camp Kotok in Grand Lake Stream, Maine, where the first order of business today is trying to outfish my son (not likely to happen, this year). But I’ve been looking closer at productivity barriers, and I want to give you some points to ponder.

The New Normal?

Like many of you readers, I’m old enough to remember a time when 2.3% annual GDP growth was a disappointment. We always knew America could do better. Not anymore, apparently. Some people actually cheered last week’s first estimate for 2Q real GDP growth. It was 4.4% in nominal terms, but inflation brought the figure back down. While certain segments are growing like crazy, for the most part we are muddling along in a slow growing malaise. You might even call it “stagnant.”

I for one still think the United States can do more. We have a large population of intelligent people who want to build a solid future for their children. They’re willing to work hard to do it. If that’s not happening – and clearly it isn’t – some barrier must be standing in their way. What is this barrier to productivity and growth? There are actually several, but government red tape is one of the biggest. I thought about this after reading an excellent Holman Jenkins column in the Wall Street Journal last week.

Jenkins led me to an audio recording of an interesting discussion on “The Future of Freedom, Democracy and Prosperity,” conducted at a symposium held at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution last month.
Government research & development funding has fallen off considerably from its peak in the 1970s moonshot days. This holds back worker productivity. The federal government is doing too much to slow down business and not enough to boost it.

The three economists who spoke at Stanford all pointed to important productivity barriers emanating from Washington DC.....

One of the participants, Hoover economist John Cochrane, spoke of fears that America is drifting toward a “corporatist system” with diminished political freedom. Are rules knowable in advance so businesses can avoid becoming targets of enforcement actions? Is there a meaningful appeals process? Are permissions received in a timely fashion, or can bureaucrats arbitrarily decide your case by simply sitting on it?

The answer to these questions increasingly is “no.” Whatever the merits of 1,231 individual waivers issued under ObamaCare, a law implemented largely through waivers and exemptions is not law-like. In such a system, where even hairdressers and tour guides are subjected to arbitrary licensing requirements, all the advantages accrue to established, politically connected businesses.

The resources that businesses put into complying with government regulations is staggering. I have often envied people outside the highly regulated financial industry for their freedom to operate rationally. In my business we seem to spend half our time – and an ungodly fraction of our money – just maneuvering through the regulatory morass.

Intrusive federal regulations touch every part of the economy:

• Energy and mining companies have to deal with environmental protection rules.
• Drug companies and health care providers must satisfy the FDA and Medicare.
• Cloud technology companies have to process FBI and NSA demands for user information.
• Retailers and consumer product makers are required to abide by the fine print on millions of product labels.

I could go on, but you get the point. Anything you do attracts bureaucratic oversight now. We may laugh at “helicopter parents” hovering over their children at school, but we all have a helicopter government looking over our shoulders at work.

Before anyone calls me an anarchist, I think some government regulation is perfectly appropriate. We all want clean drinking water. Everyone appreciates knowing our cars meet crash survival standards. I’m glad FAA is keeping order in the skies.

The problem arises when agencies enforce confusing, contradictory, and excessive regulations and try to micromanage the nation’s businesses. Every business owner I know is glad to play by the rules. They just want to know what the rules say, and that is frequently very hard to do.

A few weeks ago, in “Productivity and Modern-Day Horse Manure,” I explained that growth is really quite simple: if we want GDP to grow, we need some combination of population growth and productivity growth.

The US population is growing, thanks mainly to immigration, but the effectiveness of the workforce is another matter. Baby Boomer retirements are rapidly removing productive assets from the economy. To offset that trend, we need to make younger workers more productive.The red tape that constantly spews out of Foggy Bottom is not helping matters.

Regulatory Capture

The red tape hurts the economy overall, but it does help certain parties. The largest players in any niche often “capture” their regulators. Then they use their influence to tilt enforcement away from themselves and toward smaller competitors.

Put simply, new regulations can be great for your business if you are already well established and have the resources to comply with government mandates. New entrants rarely have those resources. The resulting lack of competition boosts profits for the big players but hurts consumers. The competition that would normally lead to better, less expensive goods and services never happens.

Holman Jenkins makes another great point about how over regulation affects growth.

Another participant, Lee Ohanian, a UCLA economist affiliated with Hoover, drew the connection between the regulatory state and today’s depressed growth in labor productivity. From a long-term average of 2.5% a year, the rate has dropped to 0.7% in the current recovery. Labor productivity is what allows rising incomes. A related factor is a decline in business start ups. New businesses are the ones that bring new techniques to bear and create new jobs. Big, established companies, in contrast, tend to be net job shrinkers over time.

Recall our economic growth formula: population growth plus productivity growth. The US population grew at a peak rate of 1.4% in 1992, and growth has been trending down ever since. Now it is around 0.75% per year. Add that to 0.7% productivity growth, and you see why Jeb Bush’s 4% growth target will be so hard to hit.

Blame Flows Downhill

Business leaders love to complain about the bureaucrats who run Washington’s alphabet-soup agencies. I think the problem goes deeper. With only a few exceptions, the regulators I’ve met over the years have been competent professionals. They weren’t intentionally trying to hurt my business. Often the regulations confused them as much as they confused me.

The real blame, I think, starts on Capitol Hill. Our legislative process is a sausage factory. Congress passes vague, complicated laws riddled with exceptions for this and zero tolerance for that. The result is superficially attractive but a mess inside. People in the alphabet agencies then have to remove the sausage skin and make sense of the contents. This would be a tough job for anyone. I certainly don’t envy them.

Jenkins mentions Obamacare’s convoluted waivers and exemptions. Even its advocates admit the law is a crazy mess. But how and why did it get that way?

To continue reading this article from Thoughts from the Frontline – a free weekly publication by John Mauldin, renowned financial expert, best selling author, and Chairman of Mauldin Economics – please click here.

The article Thoughts from the Frontline: Closing the Sausage Factory was originally published at mauldineconomics.com.

Get our latest FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!

Distressed Investing

By Jared Dillian 

When most people think of distressed investing, they think of buying CCC-rated bonds at 20 or 30 cents on the dollar, then maybe sitting in bankruptcy court to divvy up the capital structure, making healthy risk-adjusted returns in the end. You just need to hire a few lawyers.

Distressed investors are a different breed of cat. It’s one of those countercyclical businesses, like repo men, who do well when everyone else is getting hammered.

I remember distressed guys killing it in 2002. Most people remember the dot-com bust, but there was a nasty credit crunch that went along with it. Nasty. High yield/distressed investments had some amazing years in 2003 and 2004. Convertible bonds in particular.

Funny thing about distressed investors is that they like to stay within their comfort zone. In my experience, they’re not keen on commodities. Like coal mining, which this week saw one bankruptcy filing and another one in the works. Distressed guys hate commodities because they are just timing the earnings cycle – which is the same as market timing.  Distressed guys want less volatile earnings so their projections aren’t totally dependent on commodity prices rising.

Coal is distressed, all right. But you don’t see the distressed guys getting involved. Even they are too scared!

Here’s a somewhat controversial statement: I think most commodities are distressed. Coal is definitely distressed. So is iron ore. Copper, too. And yes, even gold. Corn and beans have had a nice little run, but metals and energy in particular have been a complete horrorshow.

So I think it’s time to start looking at commodities as a distressed asset class. The assumption is that fair value of these commodities/producers is well above current market prices, and current market prices are wrong because of, well, a lot of things. In particular, a self-reinforcing process where selling begets more selling.

If you’re a distressed investor and you’re buying something at a deep discount, if you have a long enough time horizon, you’ll be vindicated eventually. Sometimes, it takes a long time. Sometimes, not very long at all. It’s pretty great when it works.

I have never had much aptitude for it. But I am trying it now.

Gold: A Special Case

Gold is a little different.

How do you value gold? It has no cash flows. An industrial commodity like copper is pretty easy to value. With gold, you’re trying to gauge investment demand (at the retail or sovereign level), which is hard, against mining production, which is a little easier.

But what an ounce of gold is worth is entirely subjective. More subjective than copper or cocoa or coffee. For example, if everyone started using bitcoin, there would be little to no demand for gold. (For the record, I think cryptocurrencies indeed have had an impact on gold demand.)

Basically, people want gold when they think their government no longer cares about the purchasing power of their currency. In our case, that was when the Fed was conducting quantitative easing, known colloquially as printing money.

But that’s not really what people were nervous about. Think about it. The Fed was printing money for monetary policy reasons. They were trying to effect monetary policy with interest rates at the zero bound. That’s different from printing money to buy government bonds because nobody else wants to. That’s called debt monetization.

When budget deficits get sufficiently large, people worry about things like failed bond auctions, that the Fed will have to step in and be the buyer of last resort. This is the nightmare scenario described in Greenspan’s Gold and Economic Freedom essay.

We had $1.8 trillion deficits not that long ago. The bond auctions were a little scary. I thought debt monetization was a possibility.

The deficit is lower today, mostly because of higher taxes, more aggressive revenue collection, and economic growth. As you can see, the price of gold has corresponded almost perfectly with the budget deficit.

With a small deficit today, nobody cares about gold.

Is the deficit going higher or lower in the future? Higher. Ding-ding-ding, we have a winner. One of the reasons I’m happy owning gold as a part of my portfolio.

Paper vs. Things

Asset allocation gets a lot easier when you figure out that the financial markets are a tug-of-war between paper and things. Sometimes, like now, financial assets (stocks and bonds) outperform. Stocks are overpriced, and bonds are way overpriced. Other times, like 10 years ago, commodities outperformed.

It has to do with the degree of confidence people have in… other people. A bond is a promise to repay. A stock is a promise to pay dividends, or that there will be something left over at the end. A dollar is a promise that it’s worth something, namely, a divisible part of the sum total of the productive abilities of all the people in the country.

These are pieces of paper. Paper promises. When confidence in promises is high, nobody needs gold, coal, or copper. When confidence in promises is low, time to build that underground bunker in the backyard. Confidence in promises is currently at all-time highs. Without making a positive statement either way, I’d say that only in the year 2000 were commodities more undervalued than they are right now.

Sidebar: it is tempting to treat commodities as an asset class, but you should try not to. They are idiosyncratic, and for most commodities, the cost of carry is high enough that it’s impractical to hold them for long periods of time.

Commodity related equities are a different story.

Disclaimer

I’m kind of biased on this, and I always think commodities are undervalued because I’m a deeply suspicious person and I don’t believe promises. I’ve owned gold and silver for years (plus GLD and SLV, and GDX and SIL), and if prices get low enough, I will add to those positions.

Keep in mind that I worked for the government under the Clinton administration. Clinton’s mantra to government employees was, “Do more with less.” The man did a lot to restrain the growth of government—and he was a Democrat!

People resented him for it. They wanted their fancy toys and their boondoggles. Public servants have been much happier under Bush and Obama. Not coincidentally, gold bottomed in 2000, at the end of Clinton’s presidency, and has basically been going up since.

So here is the secret sauce: You want to know when commodities are going up?
Watch the deficit. If someone dreams up free college for everyone, buy commodities with veins popping out of your neck.

Jared Dillian

If you enjoyed Jared's article, you can sign up for The 10th Man, a free weekly letter, at mauldineconomics.com. Follow Jared on Twitter @dailydirtnap

The article The 10th Man: Distressed Investing was originally published at mauldineconomics.com.

Get our latest FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!

Debunking the Claim That Puerto Rico’s Tax Benefits Are “Hype” or “Too Good to Be True”

By Nick Giambruno

It was only a matter of time before it happened.

After releasing our groundbreaking free documentary America’s Tax-Free Zone, new and old misconceptions about Puerto Rico’s tax benefits have surfaced. Many of them had previously been debunked.

The purpose of today’s article is to drive a stake through the heart of these misconceptions and forever put them to rest. And there is really no better person on the planet to do that than David Nissman, a true authority on this topic.

David Nissman was appointed by former U.S. President George W. Bush to be the United States Attorney for the U.S. Virgin Islands. He regulated the tax incentive programs there—which have many similarities to the Puerto Rico incentives—for the US federal government during his tenure. He also has written a number of the economic development statutes in place today.

David has since left the dark side and now represents U.S. taxpayers in IRS audits concerning tax incentive programs in the U.S. Territories—like the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. His current and former experiences gives him unparalleled insight into the U.S. government’s thinking behind Puerto Rico’s tax incentives.

After reading this article, you should have no doubt that Puerto Rico’s tax incentives are not “hype” and not “too good to be true.” The fact is, they are 100% real and legal. And for those who obtain them, they are here to stay.

Puerto Rico’s tax incentives may allow you to totally eliminate all forms of taxation on capital gains, interest, and dividends and reduce your corporate income tax rate to just 4%. Americans can find similar benefits nowhere else in the world short of renouncing their citizenship. Much ink has been spilled on this already, so if you are new to Puerto Rico’s tax incentives see here to get all caught up.

David will also show that:

• Puerto Rico’s tax incentives are not some fly by night thing. They fit into the economic development policy that has been supported by the U.S. federal government and both political parties for many decades.

• It’s nearly impossible for either the U.S. or Puerto Rican governments to end the tax incentives for those who already have obtained them.

Now, we aren’t saying it is impossible that these tax incentives could go away for new participants. That is a possibility, but also not a very likely one. It is also an incentive to obtain your tax benefits from the Puerto Rican government (which come in the form of a legally binding contract) as soon as possible—because once you’ve received your contract giving you your tax benefits, it will be almost impossible for anyone to take them away from you prospectively or retroactively, no matter how hard some politicians will stomp their feet.

Even if the benefits were to somehow magically disappear after a couple of years, you could still reap enormous benefits from participating in them. My colleague Louis James remarked that even if the tax incentives last only for five years, he’d be able to pay for his condo with his tax savings.

And now without further ado, I’ll turn things over to David Nissman, who will put these misconceptions to bed for good.
Until next time,

	Nick Giambruno Senior Editor, INTERNATIONALMAN.com

---

By David Nissman

When the United States began its relationship with Puerto Rico and the other Territories in the Caribbean in 1898, they were poor and had been economically oppressed. The US government sought to help create financial independence with economic development policies. This was not wholly altruistic. If the Territories were not financially independent, they would be a burden on the federal government.

From the start in the early 20^th century, the Territories’ use of incentives to develop their economies was challenged as unconstitutional in violation of Article 1, Section 8, which required that “all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.” The Supreme Court in a line of cases known as the Insular Cases used a line of deprecating and racially insensitive reasoning to accord all inhabitants of the Territories less than full constitutional rights. The less than satisfying trade-off in the outflow from the Insular Cases was that the Territories’ ability to use special tax laws to develop their economies was not restrained by Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.

This policy began in 1900 with the advent of the Foraker Act, which set up the first municipal government in Puerto Rico and permitted Puerto Rico to utilize special taxing measures. During the 114 years since the Foraker Act, Congress and the local governments in the US Territories have enacted many different programs to help the Territories raise revenues. President Herbert Hoover, visiting the Virgin Islands in 1931, was stunned at the poverty and declared:

“[W]e acquired an effective poorhouse, comprising 90 percent of the population. The people cannot be self-supporting either in living or government without discovery of new methods and resources. The purpose of the transfer of administration from the naval to a civil department is to see if we can develop some form of industry or agriculture which will relieve us of the present costs and liabilities in support of the population or the local government from the Federal Treasury or from private charity.... [H]aving assumed the responsibility, we must do our best to assist the inhabitants.”

—New York Times, March 27, 1931

Congress in 26 USC 933 (Puerto Rico) and in 934 (the Virgin Islands) has passed statutes that enable the local governments to grant benefits on territorial source income to territorial residents. These laws have been firmly in place since 1960.

Critics always opine that Congress and or the Territorial governments can take these laws away, but they neglect an important component of the legal relationship between the United States government and its Territories. The Territories have a very special status: according to US Supreme Court case law, the Territories have the status of federal agencies. If a federal agency grants a contract to a business or individual, the federal government is bound to honor it. It would be a violation of the Contracts Clause of the US Constitution to take it away. So if an individual or business holds a contract from the Puerto Rico government granting these tax benefits (Act 20, Act 22), the contract is enforceable against both the Puerto Rican and US governments. Not even Congress can affect existing contracts.

Puerto Rico’s tax incentives are carefully considered programs. The Puerto Rican government based them on the Virgin Islands Economic Development Commission (VI EDC) programs. The VI EDC program has been fully vetted and litigated in the federal courts. Everyone recognizes the legitimacy of these programs and how they are part of US developmental policy toward US Territories. The bottom line is, Puerto Rico’s tax incentives are very sustainable.

Because of the continuing discussions in Congress about reforming the tax code, there is quite a bit of fearmongering that Congress may somehow repeal these programs.

Two points must be considered when hearing this:

1) Do we actually believe that our gridlocked Congress is currently capable of reaching a bipartisan agreement to overhaul the US tax code? While the tax code is in serious need of overhaul, this is a project that is years away. When there finally is new tax legislation, the Territories will lobby hard—with the U.S. Department of the Interior (DoI) firmly on their side—to continue making these benefits available.

The United States DoI continues to recognize that the Territorial tax incentives are a necessary component of U.S. developmental policy toward its Territories. In July, 2005, the DoI filed a written statement concerning its own concerns with new tax regulations for the Territories. The paper noted that (emphasis mine):

[t]he Secretary of the Interior has stated that her top priority for the Insular Areas is to promote private sector economic development there. Under the Secretary’s leadership, the Department of the Interior has been implementing a comprehensive program to advance this priority …. Because of the special fiscal and economic challenges faced by the Insular Areas, it has been the policy of successive administrations from both parties to support tax and trade provisions to help the Insular Areas generate sufficient tax revenue and economic activity to meet the most basic needs of their people. Notwithstanding these incentives, each of the Insular Areas continues to experience severe economic and fiscal difficulties. 

Special tax provisions for the Insular Areas, in particular, manifest an important underlying principle of US territorial policy: The Federal government does not treat the Insular Areas as sources of revenue. The US has a strong interest in maintaining and enhancing the economic and fiscal well-being of the Insular Areas.

—Statement of the US Department of the Interior, Office of Insular Affairs on Temporary and Proposed Regulations to Implement the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (July, 2005)

2) Whether these programs change one day or whether Puerto Rican statehood requires different tax rules, the individuals and businesses that have decrees with the Puerto Rican government will have to be grandfathered in based on the Contracts Clause in the US Constitution. Those individuals and businesses interested in moving to Puerto Rico would be wise to get moving to the extent there is any fear of legislative change.

Finally, it is also not very likely that the Puerto Rican government itself will end these programs. Attracting wealthy people and profitable businesses to relocate to Puerto Rico through these programs is attractive to both of the major political parties in Puerto Rico. Given the financial crisis in Puerto Rico, it is unlikely that the local government—which has committed large resources to marketing these programs—will suddenly embark on a different direction.

In conclusion, those who lawfully fulfill the purpose and requirements of the Territorial tax incentive programs—like Puerto Rico’s Acts 20 and 22—should feel confident that their contracts will be honored by both governments.

Editor’s Note: If you’re considering taking advantage of Puerto Rico’s tax incentives—benefits Americans can find nowhere else—then you should check out our comprehensive video course on the topic. It’s the authoritative guide on Puerto Rico’s tax incentives with information you won’t find anywhere else; and it will save you a lot of time and money. More on that here.

The article was originally published at internationalman.com.

Get our latest FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!