The Independent Investor: Pay Gap for Women Is Growing
If Citigroup, one of the world's largest banks, is any indication, women earn 29 percent less than their male counterparts. It also revealed that only 37 percent of its managerial jobs were held by females.
Wall Street has long been known as "the last bastion" for white males. But to Citigroup's credit, it just made public its internal assessment of the existing pay gap between the genders. One reason it did so was the new disclosure standards that are now required in the United Kingdom since last April.
Last year, when Citigroup first reported these numbers for its U.K. workforce, women were paid 44 percent less, and if bonuses were counted, the gap widened to 67 percent. Kudos to Citigroup for at least narrowing the gap over the last 12 months, but much more needs to be done.
However, let's not pick on Citigroup. Plenty of the nation's top financial institutions are in the same boat. But, as a result of increasing shareholder pressure, many American companies are being required to fess up and supply data of their own inadequacies in this area.
Historically, the wage gap for women in this country has been reported to be 80 cents for every dollar a man receives in compensation. Critics argue that there has been real progress since the Equal Pay Act was passed in 1963. Back then, women only earned 60 percent of what men did.
Over the next 30 years or so that disparity was reduced by half, but it is still 80 cents.
Those who think this gap is justified (mostly white, middle-aged and older males) argue that women get paid less because they do a disproportionate share of child-rearing and household work. As such, women have a higher chance of only working part-time or dropping out of the workforce to care for children or their elderly parents. In addition, critics say that women tend to cluster into low paying sectors like administration, secretarial work, and teaching.
I say this is hogwash! Studies reveal that even in high-paying jobs, as a woman ages, the gap widens between her and her male counterparts. The idea that women should stay home and have babies is a bankrupt myth at best. I contend that "the 80 cents to the dollar" headline is also inaccurate. The real gap is far higher than that.
I have been in this business long enough to know that the way numbers are assembled can be tilted to justify any point of view. If you, for example, track women's earnings over the last 15 years, you would find that women earned 49 cents to every male dollar. At the same time, all this vaunted progress over the last thirty years has been slowing not increasing.
Part of the reason for the wage gap is Corporate America's insistence that only men (and white men at that) belong in the corner office. Despite their abilities, far fewer women have managerial roles in this country. That, in itself, explains why women overall receive less than men. I believe that all these statistically-adjusted numbers hide half the problems facing women in the workplace.
Clearly, we need more women in higher-paid jobs and in leadership positions. Our own company, small as it might be, has long recognized this fact. Our president is a woman, as is 50 percent of our staff. Women here are all in leadership roles and there are no wage discrepancies.
Unfortunately, under this presidency, Donald Trump reversed an Obama-era rule that compelled companies to report wage information to the government. As such, the vitally-important statistics women need to bolster their case will be much more difficult to find. In the meantime, if you are a woman shareholder, or a male who believes in equal pay, like I do, lobby companies you own at every opportunity to follow Citigroup's lead.
|Write a comment - 0 Comments|
@theMarket: Markets Bounce 10 Percent Since Christmas
The stock markets have gained almost one percent per day since the beginning of the year. If you had panicked and sold during the Christmas holidays, you are sitting in cash wondering when to get back in. Here is some advice.
Patience should be at the top of your "to-do" list. If you believe we are in a bear market, then the kind of rebound we are seeing in the equity markets is completely normal. Bear markets are characterized by waterfall declines followed by sharp, explosive upside rallies. Unfortunately, these fantastic trading opportunities are just that — trades.
If you are not living the markets every single moment, day-in, day-out, then forget about profiting from it. Most retail investors will get chopped up into little pieces and spit out by the proprietary trading desks and their quantum computers.
Once the markets' rally hits some kind of peak (usually, but not always a technical resistance point in the indexes), another waterfall decline will occur. Usually, this kind of action goes on until whatever low has been put into place is re-tested or breaks. That, my dear readers, is what I predict is in store for us sometime in the first quarter. How you handle that is up to you.
My advice is if you can't stomach the ups and downs of this market, you should take this opportunity to reduce your risk tolerance. That does not mean get out of stocks. It means reduce your exposure to the more aggressive areas of investment but continue to stay invested.
"Why," you might ask, "should I not just sell everything, get into cash, and wait for the markets to correct?"
That sounds logical, but it really isn't that simple. Let's take this most recent upside explosion in the markets. More than 8 percent of the move higher occurred on just two trading days. If you had been in cash, you would have missed 80 percent of the move. No one could have caught those moves unless they were invested.
On the downside, this is what might happen. Once we reach whatever bottom the market ordains, without warning, the markets will turn up. If you are in cash, you won't know what, where, or when that bottom will occur. You might think you know, but human behavior is such that you will hesitate, and hesitate, and hesitate until the market leaves you in the dust. Don't make this mistake.
The next hurdle that investors face will begin next week when fourth-quarter earnings season begins. Readers may recall my past discussions last year where I warned that peak earnings have come and gone. While profit results may still be positive in most cases, I expect they will be lower than in past quarters. The question is the degree by which they drop. Right now, analysts are expecting a 10 percent increase in earnings, which is half of last year's 20 percent growth rate.
About 20 percent of the S&P 500 companies have already warned that earnings would not meet investor's expectations. And those warnings have not been industry specific. Everything from retail to banks, autos to technology have been hit. These are developments that could precipitate another waterfall decline for the markets.
On the other side of the equation is the recent more dovish stance of the Fed. Fed Chairman, Jerome Powell has been using every opportunity to talk the markets down from their fear that he will continue to tighten, regardless of economic conditions. It is the chief reason that the markets have rebounded as much as they have.
Next week we will see who carries more weight: a less-hawkish Fed or disappointing earnings. If the bulls win out, I could see the S&P 500 Index tackle the 2,640-area next. For the bears, the downside remains the recent lows — 2,350. That's a huge spread, but that is the times we live in, so strap in.
|Write a comment - 0 Comments|
The Independent Investor: Changes to Social Security and Medicare Benefits
As the year begins, those who are retired, or who plan to soon, need to know the changes the government has recently announced to your benefits.
The good news is that retirees will get a 2.8 percent increase in Social Security payments. While that doesn't sound like much, it happens to be the largest cost-of-living adjustment in seven years. What that amounts to for the average couple in retirement is about $67 per month, or an average monthly payment of $2,448.
If you are one of those workers like me, who waited until 70 years of age before collecting benefits and are considered a "high earner," then you will be receiving as much as $73 more per month up to $2,861. On the opposite end of the scale, individuals who want to claim their benefits earlier than their full retirement age, (but still plan to work) get a benefit. The amount of money they can make before their Social Security benefits are reduced or eliminated has increased. This year, a worker younger than 66 can earn up to $17,640 before losing any social security benefits. That is $600 more than last year. After that, they will lose $1 in benefits for every $2 of earnings over that limit.
If you are going to turn 66 this year, you can earn as much as $46,920 without jeopardizing your benefits, which is $1,560 more than you could last year. Anything over that new limit will mean you will lose $1 in benefits for every three bucks you make. The earnings cap goes away once you reach full retirement age. That means you can earn any amount without forfeiting your benefits.
However, the government both giveth and taketh away. As I predicted in past columns, the government has increased the retirement age yet again. For those readers born after 1954, the new current retirement age is 66 years old. Those of us born in 1957 or later have just had six months tacked on to full retirement age. You now have to wait until you reach 66 1/2. You can still opt for early retirement at 62, but your benefits will now be reduced by 27.5 percent (compared to 25 percent last year).
As most readers know, in order to qualify for Social Security in the first place, you must earn at least 40 "credits" with a maximum of 4 credits each year. That came to $5,280 worth of credits per year. Now, those four credits must be worth at least $5,440, or a $40 increase from 2018.
Social Security benefits, despite the tax cut this year, will still be taxed in the same way. That is, your tax will be based on your adjusted gross income, plus tax-exempt interest (such as municipal bonds) and half of your Social Security benefits.
Let's say you bring home between $25,000 and $34,000 in income this year all-in. In that case, half of your Social Security benefits will be taxed. Anything more than $34,000 and 85 percent of Social Security income will be taxed. What happens if you are married? If your combined incomes range between $32,000 and $44,000, up to 50 percent of your benefits will be taxed. Over $44,000, 85 percent will be taxed.
While income taxes for many may be going down this year, payroll taxes are going up — at least for high-income workers. Maximum wages subject to FICA taxes have increased by $4,500 in 2019. What that means is that high-wage earners could be paying as much as an additional $344.25 in payroll taxes this year.
Medicare, by the way, receives 1.45 percent of the tax on all wages. Individuals making over $200,000 and married couples pulling in more than $250,000 a year will be required to fork over an additional high-income surcharge of 0.9 percent in Medicare taxes this year. Speaking of Medicare, the good news is that your Part B premiums (outpatient service charges and doctor visits) will only increase slightly this year.
|Write a comment - 0 Comments|
@theMarket: The Trump Dump
The sell-off in stocks has now exceeded the 2016 decline. Investor sentiment is as low as it has been since May of that year. The Fed refuses to save us, and Donald Trump insists on his wall or he will lay off thousands of federal workers. Did I say Merry Christmas?
The reasons for this rout are well-known by now. The latest disappointment was on Wednesday when, contrary to investor's expectations, the Fed stood firm in their quantitative tightening agenda. For a more in-depth view of the reasons for their stance, please read my Thursday column "The Fed Stands Tall."
The markets expressed their unhappiness by declining 1.5 percent in the last four days. But it wasn't just the Fed. Last Sunday evening, China's President Xi Jinping made it clear in a speech celebrating 40 years of Chinese progress and reform that "no one is in the position to dictate to the Chinese people what should or should not be done."
In essence, Xi is calling Trump's hand while upping the stakes. He is betting that Trump has a weak hand. Between the continuing revelations of the Mueller investigation, the slow-down in the U.S. economy, a divided Congress, and his shrinking popularity among voters, Trump is, at best, a paper tiger.
Investors, in my opinion, are beginning to agree with Xi. Despite Trump's tweets and assurances, the trade war he has started won't be resolved anytime soon. As that understanding takes hold among investors, the markets are selling off. The prospect of a debilitating trade war has now permeated the economy. It is slowing growth, reducing earnings and transforming a fairly positive future into something unknown and potentially extremely dangerous.
It is also becoming increasingly clear that the tax cut, which was forced through Congress by Trump, Paul Ryan, and the Republican party, has been a colossal failure. It was the largest redistribution of wealth from the poor and the middle-class to corporations and the wealthy in the history of this country. It was sold as a way to incentivize corporations to invest in capital equipment, bring skilled jobs back, hire more highly-paid workers and generally "Make America Great Again."
It has done the opposite. To date, $1.1 trillion of the $1.3 trillion tax cut to corporations went into buying back stock. If you add in the money spent on increasing dividends, then all of the corporate tax cut has been squandered. I say squandered, because most of those share purchases were made at higher stock prices. In a sense, there is some poetic justice in that.
I have written in the past that corporations (through share buy-backs) and the wealthy (who own most of the equity in this country) have benefited the most from this tax cut. However, leverage works both ways. Both parties have now seen their stocks and holdings erase all those ill-gotten gains and are in jeopardy of losing a lot more in the months to come.
Thanks to the trade war, companies are shifting jobs and investments overseas. Forecasts of economic growth are declining. The lack of skilled American workers, combined with the much stricter immigration policies of the Trump regime has forced companies to pay higher wages to existing workers, but not new workers. Those higher wages, without a corresponding increase in productivity, is what ignites inflation. And now you see why the Fed needs to hold steady on its tightening course of action.
I have not even mentioned the growing list of concerns that are slamming investors in the face on almost a daily basis. The dissolution of the Trump family "charitable" foundation, the resignation of one of the administration's last reliable cabinet members, General Jim Mattis, the sentencing of two of Trump's inner circle — the list goes on and on. Readers may observe that just about every concern I have listed has one common thread — Donald Trump. And thus, my headline: The Trump Dump.
I will be taking a long holiday this year and won't be back until after the New Year. I wish all my readers a happy holiday season and hopefully a better 2019. In the meantime, the markets are due for a bounce. But as long as Donald Trump is in the White House and calling the shots, don't for a moment think this decline is over.
|Write a comment - 0 Comments|
The Independent Investor: The Fed Stands Tall
Sometimes it takes a while, but financial markets almost always test a new incoming Federal Reserve Bank chairman. On Wednesday, Jerome Powell faced his test and passed with flying colors. Of course, a glance at the stock market averages at the end of the day on Wednesday would have the casual observers scratching their heads.
As most readers know, the stock market has been declining since October. One of the reasons for the sell-off is the fear that the Federal Reserve Bank's gradual tightening policies have gone too far. Their continuous interest rate hikes coupled with the selling of $50 billion of U.S. Treasury bonds every month had started to reduce the excess liquidity from the financial markets.
Investors fear that these actions will slow the growth of the economy and tip the country into a recession as early as next year. No one is sure that this will happen, although most economists are already ratcheting down our forecasted growth rate to somewhere around 2-2.5 percent for 2019. That is by no means a recession, simply a slowing of growth, but nonetheless, investors have decided to sell first and see what happens as events unfold.
The continued losses in the stock market, after so many years of gains, have driven the level of angst to a point where the markets (and the president) have demanded that the Fed stop tightening — now. The media and Wall Street, coming into Wednesday's FOMC meeting, were convinced that the Fed would cave-in to their demands and announce a cessation of their tightening policies. Investors wanted him to say no more rate hikes and possibly a slow-down in the amount of bonds the Fed planned to purchase in the future.
None of that happened. Instead, Jerome Powell, while bowing to the fact that the economy was slowing a wee bit, simply reduced the Fed's planned rate hikes next year from three to maybe two, depending on the economic data. As for his bond sales, that process will continue at its $50 billion monthly clip until circumstances warrant a change.
Clearly, given the 1-2 percent declines in the U.S. stock market averages for the day, investors were dismayed and sold stocks in protest. In the past, many investors have talked about the "Fed Put." Initially, this concept was coined to reflect the Federal Reserve's willingness to intercede and support the equity and bond markets during the financial crisis.
Markets understood at the time that the Fed "would have their back" in times of crisis. Through the last decade, when Greece and the Euro seemed to be in crisis, when political in-fighting in Washington jeopardized our ability to pay interest on our debt, through the various government shut-downs, etc., the Fed was there to ensure market stability.
However, those days are gone. The Fed did its job. The global economy recovered and grew. It was, the Fed explained, time to normalize their relationship to the financial markets. Their traditional job is to control the nation's inflation rate and support employment, not make sure that investors always make money in the markets. That, I believe, is the lesson everyone must re-learn.
Back in the day, you took risks and you generated returns. If you were wrong, you paid heavily, depending upon your investment choices. As we face the new year and the possibility of a recession sometime in the period of 2020-2022, the Fed's message is clear. We are returning to a time where you (and your adviser) will be responsible for your investment choices, where there is no "Fed Put" to save you if you guess wrong. And, no, the Fed has not abandoned us. It is simply returning to its historical duties. You can't have it both ways.
From the president on down, most Americans espouse the concept of a free market; how we want our economy to run with the minimum of government interference, fewer rules and regulations and, for the most part, the Darwinian concept of "every man for himself." I suggest we start practicing what we preach.
|Write a comment - 0 Comments|