Sunday, February 5, 2017

Managerial Econ: REPOST: Stossel on Greed

Managerial Econ: REPOST: Stossel on Greed





When businesses or
individuals grow their wealth, it is referred to as greed by the critics of
capitalism. But have they stop to think what the world would be like without
this so-called greed. The industrial revolution was because of capitalism, the
sophisticated techniques and state of the art equipment we use to diagnose and
treat diseases is because of capitalism, the ability to learn in a virtual
classroom is because of capitalism, and Ford’s drive and passion to mass
produce cars which lead to the invention of the assembly line was a result of
capitalism. Now stop and think about a world without all these and many other
capitalist endeavors. For example, in 1895 Rontgen discovered x-rays and within
one year the first radiology department was opened in Glasgow (Waters, 2011). Since
then through capitalism x-ray, CT scan and radiation therapy equipment are
available worldwide. Where would the manufacturing industry be, in terms of
supplying society’s need, without the assembly. The biggest advantage of
capitalism is that it creates wealth by letting people follow their
self-interests (Froeb, McCann, Shor & Ward, 2016).


When a business that is
already profitable decides to increase its profit margin by expanding it is
satisfying a self-interest and in so doing it also provides wealth for others
by creating jobs, increasing the value of its stock (increasing stockholders’
wealth), and increasing investors returns. There is a subtle difference between
self-interest and selfishness with respect to capitalism. According to Adam
Smith, the father of capitalism, “It is not from the benevolence of the
butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their
regard to their own interest” (Richards, 2009). 
In a free market, we all have the option to increase our wealth legally.
Many of us accumulate assets that are not working for us like the excessive number
of shoes in our closets that we don’t use. How much interest do you gain on
those shoes? However, if you should sell them to someone who values them more
(mutually beneficial transaction) and invest the proceeds you create wealth.
Wealth is created when assets move from a lower- to higher-valued uses (Froeb
et al, 2016).


In Stossel’s Video Mother
Theresa was compared to an entrepreneur and surprisingly the entrepreneur was
cited as having done more good than Mother Theresa. That is not to say I am not
a supporter of altruism, quite the contrary. Altruism is germane to the
corporate social responsibility (CSR) of businesses. But isn’t it better to
teach a man to grow his own food so he will never be hungry again than to feed
him temporarily? So, critics the hypocritical consumers of capitalism, you have
a choice Capitalism or Altruism? “Capitalism and altruism are incompatible, they
are philosophical opposites and therefore cannot exist in the same man or the
same society” (Richards, 2009). Moreover, altruism resembles socialism a system
that our society abhors?


References:


Froeb, L. M., McCann, B.
T., Shor, M. & Ward, M. R. (2016). Managerial Economics: A Problem-Solving
Approach. Fourth Edition. Cengage Learning, Boston. Print


Froeb, L. (2016) Repost:
Stossel on Greed. Greed (ABC 20/20 1998). Managerial Econ January 9, 2017.
Retrieved from https://managerialecon.blogspot.com/ Accessed February 5, 2017


Richards, J. W. (2009).
Was Ayn Rand Right? Capitalism and Greed. Christian Research Journal, Vol 32,
No. 4, (2009). Retrieved from
http://www.equip.org/PDF/JAF1324.pdf
Accessed February 5, 2017.


Waters, H. (2011). The
First X-ray, 1895. The Scientist, July 1, 2011. Retrieved from
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/30693/title/The-First-X-ray--1895/  Accessed February 5, 2017.

Thursday, February 2, 2017

CalSTRS Lowers Investment Risk


This strategy has been adopted around the country for some time now especially in the beginning of the recession. Only then it was a reactive posture, where billions of dollars were lost and the pension funds not only had to find ways to stop the hemorrhaging but also to infuse money into the funds to keep it alive. Almost always, both the employees and their employers were asked to share the increased contributions. In my organization, we were not asked to layout cash but instead we had to forego our annual wage increase for 3 consecutive years, which was put into the pension fund by the employers along with their contribution.

On the other hand, The California State Teacher’s Retirement Systems, CalSTRS, decision to reduce its target rate of return is a proactive move. The pension fund has done its due diligence and assess the market potential into the future and the findings were unfavorable. To maintain the current rate of return of 7.5% requires the fund to continue investing in certain stocks and bonds which promised to be too risky. Hence to protect its investors from the effects of another downturn and to mitigate the risk the fund decided to shift approximately $12 billion to treasury bonds, hedge funds and other low risk investments (Martin, 2015). The lower the risk the lower the rewards hence the lower rate of return and the corresponding higher contribution by both employees and employers to maintain the value of future payments.

According to Froeb (2016) the Present Value (PV) of the investment that would earn $100 (future value, FV) in 30 years can be calculated using the discounting equation:

PV = FV/ (1+r)k   

Where r is the rate of return and k is the number of years.

Therefore, at a rate of 7.5%    PV = $100/(1+.075)30  

                                               PV = $100/8.7549

                                               PV = $11.42

And at the lower rate of 7.0% the PV = $100/(1+.07)30 

                                                        PV = $100/7.6122

                                                         PV = $13.14

Percentage Increase in PV =  PV2 – PV1
                                                                              PV1

                                                          =  $13.14 - $11.42
                                                     $11.42

                                          = $1.72     = 0.15/ 15%
                                            $11.42



All investment decision involves a trade-off between current sacrifice and future gain. Here the payout amount is the same but the cash outflow at the beginning of the investment is different. At a glance to a lay person, the first investment option is very attractive the future benefits are bigger than the cost. However, the experts at Calstrs could peel back the layers and analyze the risk, and the probability of the 7.5% yield is very low due to the high-risk investments. Hence the management of Calstrs decision to go with the lower risk portfolio. This strategy offers significant diversification benefits to offset the risk of more volatile asset classes, such as stocks, real estate, private equity and fixed income (Starkman & Peterson, 2015).



References:

Froeb, L. (2016) Another pension fund lowers discount rate to 7%. Managerial Econ February 2, 2017. Retrieved from https://managerialecon.blogspot.com/ Accessed February 2, 2017

Froeb, L. M., McCann, B. T., Shor, M. & Ward, M. R. (2016). Managerial Economics: A Problem-Solving Approach. Fourth Edition. Cengage Learning, Boston. Print

Martin, T. W., (2015). Giant U.S. Pension Fund Calstrs to Propose Shift Away From Stocks, Bonds. The Wall street Journal. September 2, 2015. Retrieved from https://www.wsj.com/articles/giant-u-s-pension-fund-to-propose-shift-away-from-some-stocks-bonds-1441215041 Accessed February 2, 2017

Starkman, D. & Petersen, M. (2015). Pension fund CalSTRS weighs shift to safety. The Los Angeles Times. September 2, 2015. Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-calstrs-bonds-20150903-story.html   Accessed February 2, 2017.