Tag Archives: CBS

July 3, 2013 · 17:18

The Age of ‘no retirement left’ is coming

Another day and another play for one of the last foundations of wealth. As the Dutch NOS news reported, the Dutch pension funds are willing to invest in its own country. The Netherlands is currently an investment location that is receiving a very small part of that fat fund. Yet, pension funds want a level of government guarantee for these risky investments at present. That guarantee will save them for a certain amount of losses should they occur. As such the government has a level of objections. As the news reported, this plan has been a year in the making. Basically the pensions will be doing all the tasks banks are supposed to do. There is a level of risk that the pensions are not willing to carry at present. And why should they?

The reporter Jeroen van Dommelen stated “the government does not have the funds to invest, it is poor“. This is part of all the mayhem and issues on play. When the government could have stepped on the plate, they refused to do so. They pushed the bills forward. They relied on certain numbers of bettering the economy. A game played since 2006. And every time the Dutch CBS, which has government stakes and are prone to certain levels of censoring presented them. Those numbers have been downgraded quarter after quarter and as such no issues were resolved. Now this government is pretty much at the edge of viable as they received invoices from past administrations, and now, the one cauldron of cash that remains, and needs to be kept safe is being tapped on. This is not a cauldron where money renews (you know that realistic 100 coin leprechaun model), no it is like a simple soup cauldron, what is taken out, is lost forever. Starting a grab from that last cauldron that keeps an entire generation fed is not acceptable. It is too dangerous. When there were options, we were not allowed to touch it. Now that there are no options they want to touch it against our wishes and diminish it?

This is why pensions what the government to accept levels of losses, and why the buck is not passed forward, but to another person. Why should these funds be used to renovate rental properties? The rental agencies have been making a killing, or at least bosses in these places were. As examples we have the Amsterdam Rochdale scandal (Source, Dutch Parool http://www.parool.nl/parool/nl/1284/Affaire-Rochdale/index.dhtml). The Rotterdam corporation PWS, where fraud was a massive tool to offset the rental market (source: http://www.volkskrant.nl/vk/nl/2680/Economie/article/detail/766332/2006/02/10/Baas-PWS-ontslagen-om-fraude.dhtml). The examples do not even end there. The issues of preferential treatment and other calamities have given these issues a bad taste. In this environment there are grounds for calling the risk of these investments too high, in addition, these expensive dwellings should be providing for its own invested renovations. None of that seemed to have been happening. If we would investigate the issues as the Dutch SHC is investigated in 2011, where fraud was a factor, then we see that these events led to fusions which ended several steps, including in my humble opinion the prosecution of several people. The fusion left Miss Hedy van de Berk in charge after 25 years of service to clean up a mess her predecessors left. She had to lean on ‘lessons learned’ and interesting that Councillor for the City of Rotterdam Hamit Karakus (US equivalent of Alderman), who was present at that meeting seems not to have been that vocal on certain issues. This is not an accusation towards either, yet the foundation of pushing forward seems to be a clear given, and as such investments with retirement funds should be classified as a definite risk. As such we should wonder why these funds have to chip in in the first place. When we look at the responses from Henk Knoop (VVD) as MP of economic affairs, we see that he makes a clear good case where politicians want to make it more interesting to invest in Dutch events. I personally have the view that risk factors currently remain too high and until certain guarantees are added until there is clear evidence that sound investments are proven to be sound investments, the current level of risk should be considered too high.

The fact remains that they want certain levels of guarantees from Finance minister Jeroen Dijsselbloem. His view is that returns are founding certain levels of risk. This is a fair and realistic view. The issue that many have in this regard is that the risks are unrealistically given. That view has weight if we accept the faltering views SNS Reaal brought forward as it needed to be nationalised. Those are levels of lost investments, especially in commercial enterprises that are too unacceptable. Until those issues are resolved and dealt with, it seems that retirement funds have no business in a field with so much risk.

In addition the message by Jeroen van Dommelen at the end stating “resolving these issues would give way that on the day of princes there will also be good news” is way too thin to base the risk of retirement funds on. For the non-Dutch, the day of princes is on the third Tuesday in September when the Dutch government through a royal speech announces the new annual budget.

These dangers are not just visible in the Netherlands, yet in a place where they have been one of the most secure in Europe, the fall-back might be larger than anywhere else. In the UK, there is the case that Simon Cox of BBC4 reported on in regards to the pension liberation scheme last March. (Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21844955)

The options for those before retirement could access some of this cash. The issue is not just whether people select this, it is about the dangers that the acts comprises. What people do not realise is that a person’s retirement is mostly built in the last 5 years of ones funds. At that time, the interest is so rewarding that those years are the days when a retirement almost doubles making it a good thing (read enough to survive on). To lower these amounts, means that people either work a few additional years, or fall short by a chunk of what they would need. So it is a danger one should not consider. My thoughts are not as full on extreme as those of Shaun Richards of “Mindful Money”. He is more into the question whether an economic war between the saving retirees and the youthful left with nothing (something according to those lines). I do not think it is that far, yet, the greedy and their prying eyes on those untapped resources are out there, so there are dangers. His story makes for a good read, so check it out at http://www.mindfulmoney.co.uk/wp/shaun-richards/is-there-a-danger-of-an-economic-war-between-pensioners-and-the-young-in-the-uk/

If there is one note of criticism from my side on this article then it is the focal view as he looked at the groups, yet outliers from those groups and whether they moved from one group to another is slightly ignored, so a possible factor of skewing from those evading the credit crunch and those who got pushed out into destitution all together seemed to have been ignored, that group might have remained too small (however, still unillustrated).

His views should not be discarded. It seems to me that his views are partially adopted by Peter Hain of the Guardian (alternative is that they came to similar conclusions). Peter was quite adamant on the loss of cohesion as he describes it. Where I disagree is the Nick Clegg view where the better off retirees should ‘abolish’ their tax benefits. Is that fair? Those who remained cautious are now better off, whilst those who ‘partied on’ need additional support. I see no reason for those who did give out those extra few bobs to benefit now should give that up again. The social structure is all good and fine, yet those who did not keep their responsible part are now, as should be suffering a little more. A model was long term agreed upon, as today’s irresponsible spending’s should not be charged to those who got charged and worked all their lives. This is where ‘the Clegg principle’ falls short in my view. Peter’s words strike goal at the end where he writes “Cutting or means-testing pensioners allowances risks turning young against old and rich against poor while making negligible savings for the Treasury“. That is a risk we should not allow. Not because of the unfairness of this, but for the risk that the young will allow the exploiting of funds that should not be touched. In the end it is not just a negligible saving for the treasury, there is every indication that this will propel certain additional costs forward. Especially considering that these costs could have been avoided all together.

These issues also raise a few questions when we look at the Swedish system. A system protected by government and is totally untouchable by people until they retire. This quote came from the Swedish national bank this year. The question on the safety of retirements as such what return on investment has been achieved. the statement was “The major Swedish banks’ liabilities in US dollar amounted to just over SEK 1,600 billion at the end of 2012. Approximately 20 per cent of these liabilities consist of deposits, above all from large non-financial and non-bank financial companies.” So at 1.6 trillion Kronor, the outsourced risk that adds up to almost to SEK 226,000 for every Swedish citizen, all those funds in one investment? That looks like a very dangerous investment indeed, as that makes it the bulk of all the retirement investments all in one fund. When I look at my Swedish retirement savings then I have seen it go up by less than 5% annually (because I have annual costs, but I no longer live in Sweden and therefor no longer add to it). So what dangers are there for retirement investments all over Europe? France is in a peril no less dangerous, especially as President Hollande is asking the retirees to fill the French Coffers. Perhaps he will add a “s’il vous plait” (‘please’ in French) to that request at the end, but the message is rather clear. (Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/05/france-pension-reforms-hollande_n_2810024.html)

There is a European issue with retirement incomes, and it seems that the push it forward routine, as I started with in the beginning of this blog has been a blanket policy for many nations. Should they blame former president Nicolas Sarkozy? He tried to up the age of retirement by 2 years. I do not think it is fair (mainly because dangers were not reported in time). Not unlike the Dutch system as I mentioned in previous blogs. The push-it-forward routine has been employed for too long in several nations.

These retirees all worked hard until they retired. The fact that the younger generation holds those to account and not those who refused to act is unfair. We should add the question on issues that banks had like rogue trader Jérôme Kerviel. A person who decreased French bank values by almost 5 billion Euros. Even though he was convicted and he was supposed to pay this back. How much was actually paid back? Was all this money returned? It is so tearful to somehow this poor poor man has lost it all. Did he? He never owned 5 billion, so it was not his to lose. So if we see all these international trading shortfalls in France, UK, Netherlands, Italy and a few other nations (I reported on those issues in previous blogs). Those sums are more than the combined retirement funds that are about to get endangered. I think these governments should get those coins back before they go after the somewhat defenceless retirement funds.

Still today governments are setting out costs that they cannot foot the bill for. To now address retirement funds is an unacceptable step. Consider the initial Dutch version were in their own admission plans had been in the making for one year. Look at cutbacks that have not yet been met. These events show clearly that these events should have been stopped yesterday, whilst allowing them tomorrow has every realistic view that they could leave the entire upcoming retiring generation destitute.

Are banks now too much in control?

I mentioned some of this yesterday, some people are just too unwilling to learn and they are very willing to sell you a too pretty a picture. This is what is now starting to become clear and in a dangerous way. Again, not unlike previous events, this blog was inspired by the Dutch NOS (www.nos.nl).

Political parties are now starting to ‘panic’ and are quickly grabbing to solution wherever they can. The issue is that the Dutch economy is apparently even worse then was initially predicted by the Central Bureau of Statistics (www.CBS.nl). Their initial prediction of -0.1% is now -0.4%. Interesting fact is that I predicted something like this in my blog ‘A noun of non-profit‘ on May 15th, just over a month ago. So is this bad news management? To me it seems to be more and more the case.

Diederik Samson of the PVDA (Dutch labour party) is now trying to kick-start the economy by offering alternative sources to spend from. Well, Mr Samson, there are two issues with that idea. The first one, most people do not trust bankers and politicians, now they are seemingly joining hands many have reason to trust both of them even less. The second reason is that the unreliability of the current economy is stopping people to spend anything as long as they are in debt.

The basic issue is that there is too much uncertainty for the next two years. As such people pay their mortgage and essential bills as much as possible. The people are paying off their debts as banks cannot be trusted to play nice. This is the consequence of not containing the massive wave of simply put insane investment sprees. Perhaps some will remember how SNS Reaal needed to be nationalised?

So as the Dutch need to cut 6 billion in expenses, they now seek other way to find spending options to raise the economy and next on their list is the attempt to use pension funds to do this.

Basically, quoting Arjan Noorlander from yesterday’s NOS newscast “The people managing these funds are often investing abroad to get their dividends. This does not help the Dutch economy” He then further states “These funds should invest tens of billions by taking over mortgages from banks, so that they can offer new mortgage investments“.

How is this anywhere near a good idea? Banks, remember them? They are not to be trusted at present, or anywhere in the near future for that matter!

As we have all these bad bank mortgages out and floating, relieving banks from these burdens by losing upcoming retirement funds is more than just a bad idea. Arjan Noorlander did continue and did end with the fact that this is dangerous and retirement funds might get lost in this way, and that it might be an option if the government underwrites these loans so that they will pay the losses if those occur. To me it reads that in the end that another bill will be given to the taxpayers one way or another.

The issues of keeping the retirement funds safe was also mentioned by Alexander Pechtold (D66 = Democrats 1966), he continues by saying that first and foremost there should be clarity on how and if this should proceed.

You see, there are two sides to that part. In the first part the Dutch officials shot themselves in the foot for a long time by keeping housing too expensive for way too long a time. It was left to certain groups to keep the prices artificially too high. I myself viewed it as an artificial push to keep housing prices beyond acceptable as it increases the capital position of banks. Then there was the issue of preferential treatment for some places, as there were ways that the ‘right’ people got into those places. I myself experienced these events first-hand. Too many issues played and in a time when incomes were good, people got what they could and as such they are now stuck in a solid position, where moving away will cost any person a fortune. To illustrate this, my former, small, 2-bedroom apartment in Rotterdam would buy me an apartment almost twice that size in Stockholm, Sweden. So considering these facts, moving is not an option for many, which means that people are paying of their mortgage as much as possible.

The second part is that up to 2005, it was way too easy to get all kinds of credits and payment deferrals. These options all come at some percentage expense and as incomes were good, no one really cared too much. Now, to not end up in a situation where these people will have to eat their mortgage, or sell their house (making them destitute), they are now all paying off their debts as much and as fast as they can.

These two factors add to the fact that people will not spend money. Not unlike the government, too much money was taken in advance, and unlike the government, they are not getting to push it forward, so there is no spending. These factors had been known for a long time (at least 3-5 years), so when politicians are all so amazed that economic infusion plans are not working, then that amazement seems somewhat disingenuous to me. The fact that the Dutch are so about housing corporations, to be given the funds to grow is tying the cat to the bacon in more than one way.

This is not allowed to become an ‘opportunity knocks’ situation, especially when they are playing with retirement funds. If they really want to do something that adds up, then give people the option to use their retirement plan to pay of a mortgage of a new house. Those young enough will then have a building future. And it should be managed by a banking branch of those who keep those funds at present. Yet, I reckon that it will raise voices that this is not opening the economy enough. So is this about the banks, the people or the economy? I wonder how quick objections will loudly rise when banks are kept out of the equation. It would give rise to my suspicions that the banks are in more control then people realise.

Again, that risk is very real in the UK as well. Instead of keeping a decent flow of affordable housing, we see an economy in neutral whilst the hill it is up against seems to be rising more and more.

This was discussed in the Guardian, April 27th (http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/blog/2013/apr/27/pensions-system-failed-what-answer) When we look at this in regards to a failing amount of retirement savings as the predicted cost of living has been incorrect for at least a decade, likely closer to 2 decades, we now see a dangerous development. This is a market where over 40% of those approaching their elderly need will have to sell their residence to afford future care.

Suddenly ‘The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel‘ doesn’t sound like the worst idea for people to consider.

This again brings me to the idea of solutions. It is always nice to kick a parliamentarian (a therapeutic form of soul food), but we should consider options and opportunities for solutions.

There was an idea in South Australia several years ago that was quite remarkable. To solve housing, the government gave away land on loan. So basically, you got to buy a plot for $1. The conditions were that you had to place a house on it, and the value of the land was payable when you sold the house. So basically you had a house on free land as long as you lived on it. This solved two parts. One, the housing issues fell away for some, second a house needed to be build, so that was good for jobs and economy. I always thought that was a good idea to get people into their first house. The second part is the retirement issue. Now many prefer to remain where they are. This is fair enough. Yet, consider that instead of eating your house, you are leasing it away or renting it out. Consider that live in places like Greece, Spain and even India could be more rewarding (and warmer) as you live in a place where the cost of living is a lot lower. Lower cost means a better quality of life. I am not stating that this is an option for all, but perhaps it could be an option for a decent amount, giving breathing space to create new ideas and options. Whatever people choose, I hope it is one people will be able to live with in a comfortable way.

Repeating lack of retirement insight

We have seen many plays in the past and present, where some are so short sighted on getting their own margins set, that they seem to be in short supply of common sense. Where is this coming from?

I remember issues evolving in 1997 that politicians did not heed the words of people in the know when it comes to the issues of retirement. It was stated within the corridors of those who work there that the retirement funds were not getting enough money to build the buffers needed for that generation to enter retirement. Those words were ignored by those who could do something about that.

It was not until the Dutch Central Bureau of Statistics warned of the upcoming dangers of shortages in retirement funds a year later. (Source: http://www.cbs.nl/nl-NL/menu/themas/arbeid-sociale-zekerheid/publicaties/artikelen/archief/1998/1998-0129-wm1.htm ) This specific article warns the reader that the amount of people going into retirement up to 2015 will drastically increase as this will be the time frame where the baby boomers will go into retirement. Other documents gave the same warning. There was even additional warning that the group that follows was a lot smaller, as such the then current non-retiring population would not be growing the retirement funds to the degree it needs to grow. The consequence would be that the funds would grow dry really fast.

In addition, this was all before the crashes of 2004, so the reality was even grimmer then most thought it to be. That reality became truth as the retirement funds started to pay less in 2011. Whatever the reason that got voiced by those involved, in the end it was about an increasing lack of retirement buffers. Now, today (OK, yesterday), advertisements by groups like the FNV (Dutch Union of workers) is warning people about the dangers to retirements. Why?

Political parties are now in the mindset to lower retirement payments by people. They are hoping that fewer costs mean more income into the streets. Also, as retirement payments are not taxable, lowering the tax deductibility will result in more taxation entering the coffers of government. So, there is now a clear impression that certain people in government are really willing to betray those who need retirement later on and base that risk on the ‘I need to look good now’ option.

Am I exaggerating? Is it about their view, their look? That is a fair question, yet messing around with long term pension building, not just the basic fear that people might end up with no more than 55% of their retirement funds is a dangerous act. This is not even taking into consideration dangers of additional future bank and investment failings where the buffers are currently still way too small and too much danger is placed upon funds that needs to feed a generation is just short sighted and completely unwarranted and therefor unacceptable.

What is the opposite side? Well, if we pay a little too much now, then we do get into a field where pensions will be a true safety net, especially in ages where all costs keep on rising and rising. The AOW (Government paid pensions) will remain a true safety net and could be a future foundation of safety. All that should not now or ever be endangered by unproven and assumed options for revitalising the economy. This looks like an upcoming excuse where the statistics of a better economy in 2014 (a claim that is nowhere near any level of certainty) should not be fed with long term securities. I personally see that any politician signing of on this one is to be held liable. There is the crux; they will not care as it is all about the now! Can we allow politicians to remain in office as they overspend for such a long time, not being able to balance their accounts and now are willing to endanger the next generation?

This is not just about the Dutch system. We should investigate these issues as they are likely to emerge in the UK, Canada, Australia, France, Italy and other nations. These nations are all in a state of deficit and as such, politicians in those nations would also seek a way to look good. Playing poker with the retirement funds of a next generation is an unacceptable gamble which should publicly be stated as null and void.

It is very tempting for the young, restless and party generation to not care about those issues now, but those who are not in a field where they are assured of long above average paying employment will soon thereafter learn the hard way that they are looking towards working another 15 years just to make the bare minimum.

If a politician has one clear responsibility, then it is not about getting by now, but to create safety, stability and security for the future. We are used to the short-sightedness of ‘Excel managers’ managing the needs to their next commission with a lack of long term vision, we should not allow politicians to do the same to the future of so many.

Tag Archives: CBS

The Age of ‘no retirement left’ is coming

Are banks now too much in control?

Repeating lack of retirement insight

Recent Posts

Archives