by I do finance because finance is awesome
Finance is awesome. This podcast discusses financial developments. I aim to add value to the cacophony of finance noise. I am an experienced angel investor, board member, and finance expert. And, I have written more than 35 peer reviewed finance articles.
Language
🇺🇲
Publishing Since
12/19/2022
Pitch yourself as a guest, propose sponsorships, or reach out directly to the host.
November 13, 2023
<p>Interest Rates and Inflation look set to remain higher for longer, at least according to Ken Griffin and Howard Marks, and (presumably) Bill Ackman and (seemingly) Jerome Powell. </p> <p><br></p> <p>#InterestRates #Inflation </p>
May 12, 2023
<p></p><p>If it feels like the US is lurching from debt crisis to debt crisis, that might be because it is. At the time of recording, congress is considering whether to raise the “debt ceiling”. Again. The debt ceiling is the limit on how much the US government can borrow overall, including to satisfy already approved expenditures. The debt ceiling currently sits at $31.4 Trillion. The government currently is looking to raise the ceiling so that it can borrow more in order to fund new and existing expenditure.</p><p>This is not the first time we have been in this situation. Debates over the debt ceiling occur almost every year. Indeed, by the time you see this, we might have moved onto yet another debt ceiling, well above the $31.4 trillion limit that currently exists. Indeed, the debt ceiling has increased nearly exponentially since the 1940s.</p><p></p><p>This is not just in ‘nominal terms’. Even after adjusting for inflation, the debt ceiling has increased monumentally. The increase in debt cannot merely be explained by the US dollar devaluaing.</p><p></p><p>Let’s explore the debt ceiling further.</p><p></p><p>How did we get here?</p><p>The US did not always have a debt ceiling. Before 1917, there was no debt ceiling. However, a debt ceiling emerged in 1917 with the <a target="_blank" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Liberty_Bond_Act">Second Liberty Bond Act</a>. This solidified in 1939 with the <a target="_blank" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_debt_ceiling#Public_Debt_Acts">Public Debt Acts</a>. Henceforth, the US was to have a form of Debt Ceiling, even if the exact parameters changed over time.</p><p>The US had moved away from a Debt Ceiling in 1979. The Gephardt Rule deemed the debt ceiling to increase with each budget. However, congress repealed this rule in 1995. This has exacerbated debt related concerns, leading to myriad stand offs over the debt ceiling.</p><p>The current approach means that – in the United States – congress must pass both a budget and a debt ceiling. That is, congress can approve expenditure that is not funded either through revenue or through existing debt provisions. Conversely, congress can increase the debt ceiling above its present requirements, or even suspend the debt ceiling. In practice, this often means that parties tussle over both the budget and over the debt ceiling.</p><p>What happens if there is no agreement?</p><p>Congress might not agree on a debt ceiling increase in a timely manner. If there is a protracted impasse, this can trigger significant consequences. If the impasse persists, the US might default on its debt. Let us explore some of the ways that congress might manage debt related disagreements.</p><p>1. <strong>Government shutdown</strong>: A government shut down involves furloughing workers and shutting down various facilities. The furloughed workers are ordinarily not paid during the shutdown but are awarded back pay, where relevant. Contractors are not paid. This can save money in the short term. However, it is costly thereafter. The costs involve dents to the US’s reputation, back pay, rectification for deferred work, overtime when workers ultimately need to catch up on work, and revenue and productivity foregone. Shut downs have been relatively common.</p><p></p><p>2. <strong>Extraordinary measures</strong>: Treasury has several possible extraordinary measures available. These often involve deferring savings and investment. For example, they can include suspending investments in the Thrift Savings Plan for the retirement fund for federal employees. However, this is relatively short term as treasury would ultimately need to catch up on the foregone investments.</p><p>3. <strong>Sales</strong>: The government could sell assets in order to meet short term requirements. For example, the government has sold gold. However, in theory, the government could sell myriad other assets if necessary.</p><p>4. <strong>Money printing</strong>: In theory, the US government could print money in order to make payments. However, this would damage government credibility, set a dangerous precedent (i.e., the other party could attempt to orchestrate it), undermine Federal Reserve independence, and be inflationary.</p><p>5. <strong>14</strong><strong>th</strong><strong> Amendment</strong>: It is possible that the idea of a Debt Ceiling is unconstitutional. However, this is unsettled and would ultimately be for the court to determine. The logic is that, under the 14th Amendment, the debt of the United States “shall not be questioned”. This is sometimes taken to mean that congress cannot take measures that would prevent the government from paying debt (i.e., where it must raise new debt in order to pay for existing unpaid obligations). However, it is not clear that merely refusing to raise the debt limit would violate the 14th amendment. And, in any case, this would be a matter for the courts to determine.</p><p>If the impasse persists, the US government could default on its debt. This would be highly costly as it would cause the US’s credit rating to decline. In turn, this would increase the required yield (and interest rate) on government debt. This would make funding the government more costly both immediately and, especially, for future generations.</p><p>Why is there a debt ceiling?</p><p>Why then is there a debt ceiling? The debt ceiling appears to create inconvenience. A shut down or a default would be costly. There are likely two overarching reasons:</p><p>1. The Debt Ceiling is intended to restrain government spending. If congress must ask for more money in order to fund expenditure requirements, it might discourage excessive spending. Further, it can enable opposition parties to force spending concessions, thereby mitigating a structural deficit. Ideally, this mechanism would not be necessary. However, in an environment where parties prefer to increase spending and that spending is unfunded, this can confer some discipline.</p><p>2. The Debt Ceiling can force parties to work together. In so doing, it helps to avoid one party steamrolling over the other party. This is because the dominate party might be able to pass a budget, but that party might not remain in power after midterm elections. Therefore, the heretofore dominant party that wants to increase spending might have restraint imposed on it. In so doing, the debt ceiling forces negotiation.</p><p>Regardless of its merits, or otherwise, the Debt Ceiling appears here to stay. It is therefore incumbent on parties to reach a Debt Ceiling resolution. Importantly, this does not mean that parties should merely acquiesce to untrammeled spending increases. Rather, it means that the party who wishes to undertake more debt must make its case and must highlight how that additional debt is beneficial and generates economic growth without exacerbating structural deficits or saddling future generations with unproductive excessive debt.</p> <br/><br/>This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit <a href="https://financemark.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2">financemark.substack.com/subscribe</a>
April 16, 2023
This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit <a href="https://financemark.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_7">financemark.substack.com</a><br/><br/><p>Anheuser-Busch’s stock price has fallen more than 3%, and lost $4 Billion on the back of the Bud Light / Dylan Mulvaney controversy.</p><p>The background scenario is that Bud Light (an Anheuser-Busch brand) secured Dylan Mulvaney as an <a target="_blank" href="https://www.instagram.com/p/CqgTftujqZc/">ambassador</a>. Dylan Mulvaney is an influencer and trans activist. She has been polarizing. Some people reacted vitriolically to this. Kid Rock, for example, <a target="_blank" href="https://www.instagram.com/p/CqmUBDegYwN/?hl=en">filmed himself</a> unleashing on a stockpile of Bud Light. There have been calls to boycott Bud Light and Anheuser Busch.</p><p>The boycotts have erased significant value from Anheuser Busch (ticker: BUD). BUD’s stock has fallen some 3.2% since Dylan Mulvaney was announced as ambassador. It is worse after adjusting for broader market movements. BUD’s cumulative abnormal return is -4.2% between 3 April and 14 April.</p><p>Many boycotts are short lived and their economic impact limited. Thus, there are questions over how long the bud light boycotts will last and how much they will erase from Anheuser-Busch’s revenue.</p><p>The precipitous fall thus begs the question of whether now is the time to ‘buy the dip’ in anticipation of BUD’s stock price recovering. However, as attractive, and as popular as buying the dip has become, there are good reasons to be cautious about doing so.</p>
Have a different question and can't find the answer you're looking for? Reach out to our support team by sending us an email and we'll get back to you as soon as we can.
Finance is awesome. This podcast discusses financial developments.
I aim to add value to the cacophony of finance noise. I am an experienced angel investor, board member, and finance expert. And, I have written more than 35 peer reviewed finance articles.
This podcast updates daily.
This podcast is available on 4 platforms including Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and more. You can also use the RSS feed directly.
No, this podcast does not typically feature guests.
Pod Engine is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or officially connected with any of the podcasts displayed on this platform. We operate independently as a podcast discovery and analytics service.
All podcast artwork, thumbnails, and content displayed on this page are the property of their respective owners and are protected by applicable copyright laws. This includes, but is not limited to, podcast cover art, episode artwork, show descriptions, episode titles, transcripts, audio snippets, and any other content originating from the podcast creators or their licensors.
We display this content under fair use principles and/or implied license for the purpose of podcast discovery, information, and commentary. We make no claim of ownership over any podcast content, artwork, or related materials shown on this platform. All trademarks, service marks, and trade names are the property of their respective owners.
While we strive to ensure all content usage is properly authorized, if you are a rights holder and believe your content is being used inappropriately or without proper authorization, please contact us immediately at hey@podengine.ai for prompt review and appropriate action, which may include content removal or proper attribution.
By accessing and using this platform, you acknowledge and agree to respect all applicable copyright laws and intellectual property rights of content owners. Any unauthorized reproduction, distribution, or commercial use of the content displayed on this platform is strictly prohibited.