Tag Archives: Purchasing Power

Inflation Remains at Four Decade High in August

Posted on by

Inflation, which is a loss of purchasing power, is likely to stay elevated thanks to a variety of structural forces.

The Labor Department reported an 8.3% year-over-year increase in the total Consumer Price Index (CPI) for August. It was a bigger gain in inflation, which is a loss of purchasing power, than expected. Economists and financial strategists agreed that the latest data show inflation is sticky.

Sticky inflation is underlying inflation, or inflation in areas where prices tend to change relatively slowly. Additionally, inflation is structural, meaning the floor is higher than many might assume, and the potential implications go beyond recession.

Vincent Deluard, director of global macro strategy at StoneX Financial, says the current period of inflation is the result of three shortages: labor, energy, and trust.

  • Labor. The U.S. labor market is still about seven million workers short of pre-pandemic levels.
  • Energy. The transition to green energy requires moving down the energy-density ladder for the first time in history, meaning the green transition will consume more resources for similar output. And, when withdraws from the strategic petroleum reserve (SPR) stops, it will remove a downward force on oil prices.
  • Trust. Inflation is inversely proportional to the level of trust between a country’s citizens. “Inflation is a fever that tells you an economy has an underlying ailment of weakening trust, then the fever weakens the body, and it all worsens,” opined Deluard. Inflation is “always and everywhere a psychological phenomenon,” where the problem worsens the longer it persists, Deluard states, as he modifies Milton Friedman’s take on inflation.

Additionally, the August’s CPI report puts the “peak inflation” assumption into question and shows that the labor market and demand -– not supply — problems are driving price increases.

More volatile inflation in categories such as food and energy, which economists and policy makers back out of inflation readings to get to what they call core inflation.

The Fed’s attempt to front-load interest-rate increases is one attempt to regain public trust and restore price stability. The “transitory” inflation argument that has been retired in speeches but not in spirit.

Investors, and central bankers themselves, may therefore be underestimating what the Fed must do to curb inflation, while simultaneously underestimating the odds that inflation remains well above 2% for longer.

References:

  1. https://www.barrons.com/articles/inflation-cpi-labor-shortage-energy-prices-51660265410
  2. https://www.barrons.com/articles/cpi-inflation-report-july-2022-data-51660078098?mod=article_inline

Inflation and Time Value of Money

Posted on by

As time passes, the value of money declines.

Consumer-price inflation rose to 8.6% in May, its highest in forty years. This tax on households and businesses threatens the overall health of the U.S. economy. Deficit fiscal spending and supply shocks and Russian invasion are the primary causes of the current historic inflation.

Inflation is defined as the decline of purchasing power of the U.S. Dollar over a certain period of time. Inflation is usually expressed as the change in prices over a one-year period.

Purchasing power means how much your money can buy—its “buying power.” You lose purchasing power when prices go up (inflation) and gain purchasing power when prices go down (deflation). Inflation changes the value of a currency over time.

Inflation, risk and opportunity cost together reduce the value of the dollar as time passes. And, when inflation increases, the purchasing power of the U.S. Dollar decreases.

Inflation is rampant, the Federal Reserve seems poised to raise interest rates even higher than previously expected, financial markets are free falling, and there are fears of recession in the air. All this signals economic pain ahead for Americans.

A recession is my no means certain, with a strong jobs market and consumers still flush from pandemic fiscal government handouts. But inflation is sapping consumer and business confidence.

A tax increase would reduce investment and further restrict supply, which would arguably increase inflation.

Inflation is a cost spread over every American. Unemployment, a byproduct of a recession, lands especially hard on specific Americans and American families. Thus, it natural for economists to accept a little more inflation to protect employment and strive for a soft landing.

Blossoming federal role in directly supporting the consumption of a vast number of Americans is a primary driver of fiscal deficits and persistent inflation.

  • 75 million receive a combination of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security
  • 98 million receive veteran and retired federal government benefits, college aid, rental assistance, Obamacare, food stamps, etc.

These transfers are financed by chronic fiscal deficits. To remedy the problem, politicians would face the career ending choice of benefit cuts, tax hikes or increase borrowing regardless of the worsening effect in inflation.

If prompt and effective actions are not pursued by the Federal Reserve and Administration, the nation may revisit the Stagflation of the 1970s which persisted more than a decade with great consequences to society and the economy.

References:

  1. https://debtinflation.com/how-does-inflation-impact-purchasing-power/
  2. https://www.acorns.com/money-basics/the-economy/what-is-purchasing-power-and-how-does-inflation-affect-it-/

Loss of Purchasing Power: Is $1 million enough for retirement?

Posted on by

“One million dollars doesn’t buy as many Cadillac Escalades as it used to.”

Today, $1 million no longer buys as many McDonald’s Big Mac sandwiches or Rolex Submariner watches or Ford F150 trucks as it once did thirty years ago.  There’s a good reason for that called ‘loss of purchasing power’ which is a byproduct of inflation. That’s because $1 million of purchasing power in 1970 was the equivalent of nearly seven million dollars today, according to Motley Fool. And as recently as 1990, a million dollars has lost half its buying power since then, meaning you’d need two million today to have the same buying power as you did in 1990.

As a result of normal inflation and loss of purchasing power, $1 million retirement nest egg today definitely will not offer you as comfortable a retirement lifestyle as it did a few years ago or a few decades ago.

Retirement is not an age, but a number

Financial preparedness is more important than reaching a certain retirement age. And, to answer the question of whether $1 million or any amount of money is enough for retirement, the answer depends on what you want your retirement to look like.

It’s important to ensure you have enough savings and income to sustain your spending and lifestyle in retirement. If you don’t have enough money set aside to pay for your retirement, then you may have to delay retiring. And no matter where you are on your retirement journey, you can make your financial number. No matter how little you have or how much time you have left until you want to retire, you can always improve your financial situation. Getting started and creating a retirement plan can carry you a long way.

A 2018 Northwestern Mutual study found that one in three Americans has less than $5,000 saved up for retirement, and 21% of Americans have no retirement savings at all. Overall, Americans are feeling underprepared and less confident regarding the financial realities of retirement, according to the data.

Despite these findings regarding the woeful retirement savings rate by Americans, it’s still not too late to enjoy the kind of life you’ve worked so hard for… and the retirement you deserve.

One of the most important goals for Ameriocans facing retirement is knowing that they can sustain their desired level of spending and lifestyle throughout their lives, with a sense of financial peace of mind and without the fear of running out of money.  For our purposes, financial peace of mind is the knowledge that, no matter your level of savings or degree of market volatility, you are confident that you are unlikely to run out of money during retirement to support your level of spending and  lifestyle.

Taking the financial road less traveled

Conventional wisdom recommend that older Americans should reduce their stock allocation in retirement and move into more safe investments such as bonds and cash.  Although this may seem the less risky road to take in your retirement years, a few experts do not agree.  If you expect to maintain your purchasing power into future, you must stay invested in stocks.

“The idea that a 60-year-old retiree should be investing primarily in conservative investments is an antiquated way of approaching personal finance”, says Jake Loescher, financial advisor, at Savant Capital Management in a 2017 U.S. News article. “Historically, the rule of thumb stated that an individual should take the number 100, subtract their age, which will define the amount of stocks someone should have in their portfolio. For a 60-year-old, this obviously would mean 40 percent stocks is an appropriate amount of risk.”

“A better approach would be to perform a risk assessment and consider first how much risk an individual needs to take based on their personal circumstances,” Loescher says.

According to the article, there are five circumstances when retirees should eskew conventionl wisdom:

  1. The likelihood you’ll live into your 90s or beyond. Since life expectancy is much longer these days and in today’s low-interest environment, you face an increase risk of your nest egg not keeping up with inflation over the long haul.
  2. If you don’t have enough cash for retirement. If you didn’t accumulate enough retirement assets to sustain an expected lifestyle, it becomes essential to decide how much capital in a retirement portfolio you’re willing to risk for the potential upside appreciation.
  3. When interest rates are low. Low interest rates makes the capital risk seem greater than the value bonds might provide due to a loss of purchasing power.  Taking a total-return approach, using low volatility, dividend-paying stocks to replace part of our typical bond component seems the best approach.
  4. If you have estate planning needs. If you don’t depend totally on your investments for income, then your money may be providing a bequest for charity or an inheritance for children.
  5. For historical purposes. The stock market has outperformed all other asset classes over the last century.

In retrospect, retirees will need to allocate a certain portion of their assets to higher-return equity investments to achieve long-term retirement objectives – be it longevity of assets, a desired level of sustainable income, the ability to leave a legacy, etc.

Essentially, the stock market has outperformed all other asset classes over the last century. And studies continue to show that unless you are within three years of retirement, the average variability of stocks relative to their returns is superior to that of Treasurys, municipal and corporate bonds.  Thus, the right course of action is for older Americans to stay invested in the stock market past age 60 which will provide you at least 20 years, on average, to ride out the long-term volatility inherent in equities.

References:

  1. https://www.fool.com/ext-content/is-1-million-enough-for-retirement/
  2. https://www.pimco.com/en-us/insights/investment-strategies/featured-solutions/worried-about-retirement-pimcos-plan-to-help-retirement-savings-last-a-lifetime
  3. https://money.usnews.com/investing/articles/2017-07-24/5-reasons-to-stay-in-the-stock-market-in-your-60s
  4. https://www.pimco.com/en-us/insights/investment-strategies/featured-solutions/income-to-outcome-pimcos-retirement-framework
  5. https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/on-retirement/2011/03/22/why-retirement-is-not-an-age