Scott Anderson's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.com/user/6104681/comments http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/6104681-scott-anderson/1746921-social-security-demographics-guarantee-us-bankruptcy?source=feed#comment-17510781 17510781
W&O...the math is so simple and obvious, and yet here we are..nothing but crickets :)]]> Thu, 11 Apr 2013 16:34:36 -0400
W&O...the math is so simple and obvious, and yet here we are..nothing but crickets :)]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1097751/comments?source=feed#comment-13436061 13436061 Tue, 08 Jan 2013 10:33:27 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1097751/comments?source=feed#comment-13417451 13417451 Mon, 07 Jan 2013 19:38:09 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1097751/comments?source=feed#comment-13413851 13413851 Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:34:03 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1097751/comments?source=feed#comment-13393011 13393011 There are solutions, but they involve much short term pain, and thus will never be enacted. My goal with this article, in fact with most of my writing isn't necessarily to say what should happen, but rather to project what actually will happen.
We just witnessed an epic battle in congress just to raise taxes on 2% of the population by a mere $60B per year, and that's probably an overestimate. Can you imagine raising taxes by $500B per year(or $5T over 10 years if you prefer) and cutting spending by another $500B? It could never happen because even if the long term benefit was worth the short term pain (and it would be painful), the voters simply wouldn't have it. ]]> Mon, 07 Jan 2013 10:24:31 -0500 There are solutions, but they involve much short term pain, and thus will never be enacted. My goal with this article, in fact with most of my writing isn't necessarily to say what should happen, but rather to project what actually will happen.
We just witnessed an epic battle in congress just to raise taxes on 2% of the population by a mere $60B per year, and that's probably an overestimate. Can you imagine raising taxes by $500B per year(or $5T over 10 years if you prefer) and cutting spending by another $500B? It could never happen because even if the long term benefit was worth the short term pain (and it would be painful), the voters simply wouldn't have it. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1083811/comments?source=feed#comment-13030401 13030401 You might be interested to know that the cash in hand averaged $215B in 2009 after peaking out at $715B on 10/23/2008.
For 2012, the average cash balance has been $64.5B.
In February of 2012, due to refunds ect, the daily burn rate was about $12B... There are huge monthly swings in cash inflows and outflows, so the cushion you need varies throughout the year. January is generally a light month, running "only"a $52B cash deficit in 2012...2013 will probably be even lower, so cash demands over the next 30 days will be light coming into tax refund season that starts in Feb...or at least should start in Feb...I guess we'll have to wait and see.]]> Thu, 27 Dec 2012 12:15:30 -0500 You might be interested to know that the cash in hand averaged $215B in 2009 after peaking out at $715B on 10/23/2008.
For 2012, the average cash balance has been $64.5B.
In February of 2012, due to refunds ect, the daily burn rate was about $12B... There are huge monthly swings in cash inflows and outflows, so the cushion you need varies throughout the year. January is generally a light month, running "only"a $52B cash deficit in 2012...2013 will probably be even lower, so cash demands over the next 30 days will be light coming into tax refund season that starts in Feb...or at least should start in Feb...I guess we'll have to wait and see.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1083811/comments?source=feed#comment-13021821 13021821
On the politics, I try to be an agnostic observer using the data we have to predict not what should happen, but what will happen. The point of this article was that Treasuries announcement about hitting the limit next Monday is pure political theater and is a completely voluntary act. The only thing I'm surprised about is that it took so long to do it, but I guess they had to wait until the news cycle was right. If It was me in charge, I would have done it months ago to force the issue. Whatever happens, this is getting more interesting by the day]]> Thu, 27 Dec 2012 09:04:06 -0500
On the politics, I try to be an agnostic observer using the data we have to predict not what should happen, but what will happen. The point of this article was that Treasuries announcement about hitting the limit next Monday is pure political theater and is a completely voluntary act. The only thing I'm surprised about is that it took so long to do it, but I guess they had to wait until the news cycle was right. If It was me in charge, I would have done it months ago to force the issue. Whatever happens, this is getting more interesting by the day]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1064401/comments?source=feed#comment-12684111 12684111 Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:16:49 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1066631/comments?source=feed#comment-12678671 12678671 The problem is, who will buy an additional $10T of debt over the next decade? That's over $30k of additional debt per man woman and child. How many families of 4 do you know that plan on buying $120k of treasuries over the next decade? The Fed? In the long run, I don't know that it really matters, as I am quite sure on and off balance sheet liabilities will be defaulted on if not outright, then by being inflated away.]]> Mon, 17 Dec 2012 08:36:27 -0500 The problem is, who will buy an additional $10T of debt over the next decade? That's over $30k of additional debt per man woman and child. How many families of 4 do you know that plan on buying $120k of treasuries over the next decade? The Fed? In the long run, I don't know that it really matters, as I am quite sure on and off balance sheet liabilities will be defaulted on if not outright, then by being inflated away.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1066631/comments?source=feed#comment-12661541 12661541 I can believe it and can pretty much guarantee that they will continue to get elected. This is one of the main reasons I have come to the conclusion that regardless of how much time is left on the clock, the game is pretty much over. ]]> Sun, 16 Dec 2012 15:32:46 -0500 I can believe it and can pretty much guarantee that they will continue to get elected. This is one of the main reasons I have come to the conclusion that regardless of how much time is left on the clock, the game is pretty much over. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1066631/comments?source=feed#comment-12657521 12657521 You may be right in saying that solutions that would fix the problem exist. My belief is that the likelihood of them being enacted are slim to none. For better or worse, we live in a democracy, and I see no indication that voters from either side of the aisle are even close to being willing to accept any combination of spending cuts or tax increases that even get in the ballpark of fixing anything. Today, we are talking about $16T...there is a very high probability that 4 years from now we'll be talking about $20T. I hope I'm wrong, but the ending to this story is pretty close to being written in stone. ]]> Sun, 16 Dec 2012 12:33:46 -0500 You may be right in saying that solutions that would fix the problem exist. My belief is that the likelihood of them being enacted are slim to none. For better or worse, we live in a democracy, and I see no indication that voters from either side of the aisle are even close to being willing to accept any combination of spending cuts or tax increases that even get in the ballpark of fixing anything. Today, we are talking about $16T...there is a very high probability that 4 years from now we'll be talking about $20T. I hope I'm wrong, but the ending to this story is pretty close to being written in stone. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1066631/comments?source=feed#comment-12654231 12654231 I'm not sure we actually disagree on anything. If it wasn't clear, the point of my article was not intended to be..."you can't owe yourself money, so we are now $4.8T better off". If anything, my larger thesis, covered in prior posts and posts to come will be that we are too far gone to save. The math on this is pretty simple and crystal clear, as you touch on above.]]> Sun, 16 Dec 2012 10:46:53 -0500 I'm not sure we actually disagree on anything. If it wasn't clear, the point of my article was not intended to be..."you can't owe yourself money, so we are now $4.8T better off". If anything, my larger thesis, covered in prior posts and posts to come will be that we are too far gone to save. The math on this is pretty simple and crystal clear, as you touch on above.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1064401/comments?source=feed#comment-12603511 12603511 What about my article are you claiming is false? It's pretty basic algebra. If the debt limit is not raised, tax refunds, and a lot of other things will not be paid. No amount of revenue increases or cost cutting between now and February is going to get the government enough cash to process $200B of refunds on top of another $200B in deficits we will probably run between February and March. The debt limit must be raised, and honestly, it probably will be.
Now, we can argue all day about how we got to this point, who is to blame,and what the right path foreword is...check out my blog or other SA articles for that discussion. This article is about some pretty simple math, and I stand by my calculations. ]]> Fri, 14 Dec 2012 11:47:28 -0500 What about my article are you claiming is false? It's pretty basic algebra. If the debt limit is not raised, tax refunds, and a lot of other things will not be paid. No amount of revenue increases or cost cutting between now and February is going to get the government enough cash to process $200B of refunds on top of another $200B in deficits we will probably run between February and March. The debt limit must be raised, and honestly, it probably will be.
Now, we can argue all day about how we got to this point, who is to blame,and what the right path foreword is...check out my blog or other SA articles for that discussion. This article is about some pretty simple math, and I stand by my calculations. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1064401/comments?source=feed#comment-12594441 12594441 Even the federal govenment's books must balance. As of yesterday, the federal government had $38B cash in hand and the ability to borrow an additional $57B. These are not "highly unlikely numbers", they are cold hard facts. I used 2011/2012 actual daily reciepts and outlays from the Daily Treasury Statement to forecast the upcoming outflows. Will it be perfect? No. But it will be pretty darn close.If they can't borrow, there will be no cash to send out. That is a problem in itself, but that's just how it is.]]> Fri, 14 Dec 2012 08:33:14 -0500 Even the federal govenment's books must balance. As of yesterday, the federal government had $38B cash in hand and the ability to borrow an additional $57B. These are not "highly unlikely numbers", they are cold hard facts. I used 2011/2012 actual daily reciepts and outlays from the Daily Treasury Statement to forecast the upcoming outflows. Will it be perfect? No. But it will be pretty darn close.If they can't borrow, there will be no cash to send out. That is a problem in itself, but that's just how it is.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1059021/comments?source=feed#comment-12532011 12532011 I think that would be a start, but I don't really see it happening. Do you? Supposedly going over the fiscal cliff gets the government another $400B in revenue and cuts spending by about $100B, which all else equal might get you down to $500B-$600B deficit for 2013. The doomsayers warn that this would crush the "recovery", reduce revenue, increase unemployment ect... In effect you would just cause a lot of chaos for little net improvement in the deficit. I don't know, but it would make an interesting experiment in any case. Whatever happens, I'll be following it on my blog.]]> Wed, 12 Dec 2012 14:57:12 -0500 I think that would be a start, but I don't really see it happening. Do you? Supposedly going over the fiscal cliff gets the government another $400B in revenue and cuts spending by about $100B, which all else equal might get you down to $500B-$600B deficit for 2013. The doomsayers warn that this would crush the "recovery", reduce revenue, increase unemployment ect... In effect you would just cause a lot of chaos for little net improvement in the deficit. I don't know, but it would make an interesting experiment in any case. Whatever happens, I'll be following it on my blog.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1059021/comments?source=feed#comment-12520921 12520921 To Tony...you are absolutely correct...I really should have put some air quotes around "services"]]> Wed, 12 Dec 2012 10:56:23 -0500 To Tony...you are absolutely correct...I really should have put some air quotes around "services"]]>