I kinda want to start a catch-all "Pork" thread, but I like keeping this one alive, so I'll post it here. Latest thoughts from Merrill Lynch's David Rosenberg, who has had a great macro call for a while. Here are some thoughts on the porkulus package.
quote: |
More about redistributing income than creating wealth
The best that we can say about the fiscal stimulus plan, $787 billion covering over 1,000 pages of documentation, is that something is certainly better than nothing. It is often dubbed the 'infrastructure package', and yet of the $507 billion of new spending less than 10% is directly aimed at infrastructure outlays. Of the $282 billion in tax cuts, fully one-quarter is the typical annual provision that spares tax filers (24 million of them this year) from being ensnared by the AMT. The largest part of the tax relief part of the plan, just over 40% of it, is in tax credits for individuals earning up to $125,000 (and couples with income up to $250,000). Individuals see up to $400 and couples up to $800 of proceeds via lower withholding taxes on their paychecks. It remains to be seen how an extra $8 per paycheck is going to end the recession, but we are willing to keep an open mind. We do know that it is reductions in tax rates that, at the margin, influence households to change their behavior, and similar attempts to kick-start the economy in last year's second quarter exerted a very temporary impact on the pace of economic activity.
It is questionable how long-lasting the effects will be
There are other provisions, which we will go into in more detail, but suffice it to say that we think it really is questionable as to how long-lasting the effects of this fiscal package are going to be. Our primary concern is that it is a plan that relies heavily on multiplier impacts. If they don't occur, then we would expect to see the economy relapse after what could be a brief spurt of growth in the third quarter. That by no means suggests that there will be no winners - education, health care, energy, asphalt, the environment and technology - but it does mean that enhancing the social safety net does not necessarily translate into sustained growth in economic activity or wealth creation.
Investors should pay for growth that is sustainable
Now to be sure, while the equity market did enjoy a tradable rally ahead of last year's fiscal stimulus (which was aimed solely at low- and middle-income consumers), particularly the early cyclicals (transports, homebuilders, retailers), it was brief and the last time we saw the S&P 500 at 1400 was when the last of the tax rebates were being mailed out. Investors who have a longer-term view should be paying only for growth that is sustainable; we believe rallies that occur around the prospect of the odd statistical rebound in quarterly GDP are rallies to rent, not own.
|
|