The Government of Canada released their annual report for the 2009-2010 fiscal year (April 2009 to March 2010). The headline number is the $55.6 billion deficit.

Although the report is a pleasantly short 30 page read, I will concentrate on the expenditure side of the budget. A lot of people have the impression that federal government spending can be easily slashed. Apportioned by percentage, the $244.8 billion of expenditures look like this:

Looking at the pie chart from largest to smallest percentage expenses, one can easily see how cutting expenditures is not politically feasible. For example, a full quarter of expenses are transfers to persons. These include Old Age Security, EI payments, and child-related transfers – all three would likely have massive backlash if there was a cessation of benefits.

The government in the 1990′s, when faced with a deficit crunch (when a third of the revenues went off as interest payments) decided to cut transfer payments – this goes to the provinces mainly to pay for healthcare. Again, this would be highly unpopular if the government did so.

The discretionary expenses that the government has a chance of implementing are on defence, crown corporations, and “the rest of the government”. This is approximately 29% of the 2009-2010 fiscal expense profile. Even if you were to decrease these expenses, it would make little progress at reducing the entire expense profile, which is ballooning as the population ages.

Every Canadian should be able to understand this document, but sadly, few ever read it.

The US dollar is clearly on a downslope:

With central banks having huge incentives to devalue their currency, it is going to be a classic case of a “race to the bottom”. It is not a surprise to see commodities and gold perform in such an environment.

Canada is in an odd position – with an economy strongly aligned toward commodity prices (energy and mining), it will create strength in the dollar. Exports become less competitive on pricing, which suggests that short term interest rates will not rise because of the cooling effect of a strong currency.

In a more retail oriented environment, this will also mean that imports will be cheaper, and the most Canadian tradition of them all – cross-border shopping – will be cheaper to partake.

Mass devaluation is not quite the same as inflation, but will likely have the same result. The only question is which assets to park your cash into.

The Governor of the Bank of Canada, Mark Carney, made a speech today. Although the media is reporting otherwise, Carney is still keeping his options open:

Since the spring, the Bank has unwound the last of our exceptional liquidity measures, removed the conditional commitment, and raised the overnight rate to 1 per cent. Following these actions, financial conditions in Canada have tightened modestly but remain exceptionally stimulative. This is consistent with achieving the 2 per cent inflation target in an environment of still significant excess supply in Canada and the demand headwinds described earlier. While Canada’s circumstances and the discipline of the inflation target dictate a different policy stance than in the United States, there are limits to this divergence.

At this time of transition in the global recovery, with risks of a renewed U.S. slowdown, with constraints beginning to bind growth in emerging economies, and with domestic considerations that will slow consumption and housing activity in Canada, any further reduction in monetary policy stimulus would need to be carefully considered. The unusual uncertainty surrounding the outlook warrants caution.

Historically low policy rates, even if appropriate to achieve the inflation target, create their own risks. Aside from monetary policy, Canadian authorities will need to remain as vigilant as they have been in the past to the possibility of financial imbalances developing in an environment of still low interest rates and relative price stability.

If you read the context of the rest of the speech, essentially he is saying the economy cannot be solved with monetary policy alone, which is correct.

Also, 3-month banker’s acceptance futures (the proxy for the overnight rate projection) are not moving as a reaction to this speech.

The bond market is pricing in an upcoming deflation. Canadian 10-year benchmark yields are at around 2.8%, which is quite close to the all-time low of 2.55% reached during the pits of the economic crisis in early 2009. Although I stated previously that the next economic cycle will be inflationary, it will only be after certain conditions have been achieved – mainly the willingness of companies and consumers to spend money. Until then (which could be years away), we will not see inflation.

If this is true, then cash is likely to be a good performing asset class, if not the best asset class.

Cash is also the least “sexiest” of asset classes. It is boring. Just imagine trying to tell your colleagues that your investment portfolio is packed full of Canadian dollars. It provides a very low return (about 2%), and no possibility of appreciation. It is ironic that it might be a good asset class by virtue of other asset classes having negative returns.

Investors of government bonds will also be profiting in a deflationary environment because the government will be guaranteeing the payment of the principal – longer durations will result in larger capital gains as yields go down.

Corporate debt and other fixed income securities will fare less well simply because in deflationary environments it becomes more difficult for companies to generate cash. Debt-issuing companies will have to repay debt in nominal dollars that will have higher real value – hence, credit risk becomes a more predominant concern of the pricing of the corporate debt. For companies that have good solvency ratios (e.g. debt-to-equity and/or debt-to-free cash flows are very good), then this becomes less of a concern and corporate debt will then appreciate. But junk debt issues or corporations that are inflation-sensitive (i.e. can’t charge as much to your customers) will not be a safe haven in such an environment.

Deflation really messes with economic intuition and if market participants cannot adapt to it, there will be inefficient pricing in the markets to take advantage of if it does materialize. It would be a virtual guarantee that the Canadian real estate market would get hit badly in an economic deflation, as the prospect of paying off higher-valued debt in the future would crush prices and trump even the low interest rates that would be offered to credit-worthy customers.

I notice that Larry MacDonald has had some issues with the Akismet spam filter, which has been over-zealous in filtering his comments on other people’s websites.

I notice that on this site, he had three comments which I had to fetch out of the spam filter.

Spam is really all about economics – you can produce enough of it for such a low cost that even with a microscopic payback rate, it still is profitable. It does cause a lot of pollution on the internet, but with some Bayesian filtering you can weed out most of it and have an acceptable false positive rate.

Spam is also about game theory – a cat-and-mouse type game. The new game is that spammers are trying to increase their “credibility scores” by making innocent-sounding comments and posts in the hopes that human operators will “approve” them and then they will be able to deliver their payloads more effectively elsewhere.

Akismet has been good at picking up comments like “Like your site, keep up the good work” and other such spam comments that were socially engineered to let site owners keep them on their site. Filtering techniques are quite effective at weeding out these types of comments, such as using the IP address of the comment origin, and the submitted name and/or email address included with the comment.

However, if filtering gets too hyper-aggressive such that it begins to block out legitimate comments (called false-positives), it undermines the entire system.

Imagine a cellular phone network taking 5% of your incoming phone calls and/or text messages and not relaying them to you. You would consider this unacceptable. In the comment world, the acceptable false positive rate is likely higher, but for emails, it has to be one in a thousand in order for the system to be effective.

If spammers are able to increase the false positive rate, it will also be a victory for them since it undermines confidence in the spam detection system.

Unfortunately for Larry, it is likely that Akismet has somehow flagged his online signature as spam. Not sure how that happened, but at least on this site, I have taken three of his comments out of the spam bucket.

The second quarter of 2010 ended today. I noticed there was a lot of trading going on, especially in less-than-liquid issues that tended to trade down. I am guessing there were some liquidations that were part of some window dressing and/or automatic buying/selling for indexing purposes.

In terms of the broader markets, the S&P 500 was down 12.2% for the quarter. The TSX composite was down 6.2%. Spot oil was down 10.0%.

Perhaps the most important broad market financial measure was the 10-year US treasury bond, down from 3.85% at the beginning of the quarter to 2.95% – the market has made a significant deflationary bet over the past three months. The Canadian 10-year bond was down from 3.56% to 3.09% (June 29th data). This decrease in long term interest rates has very interesting implications – banks are parking cash in bonds rather than lending it out.

As readers of any of my sites know, I was a very big supporter of the Harper government’s decision in late 2007 to reduce the federal corporate income tax to 15% in 2012; it is currently 18% in 2010; and will be 16.5% in 2011. It was 21% from 2008 and 22.12% in 2007.

First, you had Tim Hortons moving its corporate headquarters back to Canada, where they will realize a substantial cost savings in taxes vs. their US operation.

Today, you have Biovail and Valeant merging together (note that long-time investors would know Valeant formerly as ICN Pharmaceuticals), but the key paragraph is the following:

Following completion of the merger, the new Valeant will be headquartered in Mississauga, Ontario and will remain a Canadian domiciled corporation, listed on both the Toronto and New York Stock Exchanges. In addition, the combined company will retain Biovail’s existing principal operating subsidiary in Barbados, which will continue to own, manage, control and develop intellectual property for the combined company. The location of the combined company’s U.S. headquarters will be determined after the close of the transaction.

This is purely for tax reasons. In Valeant’s California headquarters, they are subject to corporate income taxes of approximately 40% – 35% federal and about 8% state (which is deductible from federal taxes).

In Ontario, the current tax rate is 18% federal and 14% provincial; the provincial component will be reduced to 12% on July 1, 2010, for a combined rate of 31% in 2010. In mid-2011 and mid-2012, Ontario’s provincial rate goes down half a percent, and in mid-2013 it goes down to 10%. So the company will face the following effective corporate tax rates:

Calendar year 2010: 31%
Calendar year 2011: 28.25%
Calendar year 2012: 26.25%
Calendar year 2013: 25.5%
Calendar year 2014 and beyond: 25.0%

Corporations moving to British Columbia currently face a 10.5% provincial corporate tax rate, which will be reduced to 10% in 2011.

For Valeant, they reported $217 million in pre-tax income in the past 12 months. A 15% tax cut on this amount amounts to a yearly savings of about $33 million or nearly 40 cents a share. Also, any synergy benefits in the merger would also realize a 75% after-tax savings, as opposed to 60% if they had remained in California.

It is this huge 15% tax advantage that will cause more businesses to escape the USA and get into Canada. The US is going to be forced to cut corporate tax rates, otherwise they will continue to see investment leak out of the country like a thin helium balloon. As long as Canada doesn’t reverse this decision (which the opposition Liberal party has attacked the Conservatives on this very issue of corporate tax cuts) we will continue to be the beneficiaries of what is a very sound corporate taxation policy.

Article on the Financial Times – “How to best avoid performance addiction” which you might have to type into Google and click through there in order to get the full article. It describes how performance is the only barometer that most (retail) investors allocate capital, so when fund managers get money, they usually are already in quite “hot” sectors due to the prior years’ outperformance. A quotation is the following:

Most asset managers exhibit “enabling behaviours” that reinforce investors’ performance addiction by selling investment products on the basis of past – particularly short-term – performance. Although we all repeat the mantra that “past performance does not guarantee future success”, we still pay too much attention to performance.

…

Imagine a world in which every adviser and asset manager had to discuss three categories of investments with their clients: out-of-favour strategies worthy of consideration; high-performing strategies that continue to have legs; and “hot” performers that have had their run, from which investors should scale back their investments. It certainly would lead to rather different discussions than what typically occurs today.

Unfortunately I disagree with the conclusion. In the investment world, risk-adjusted future performance is everything. Risk-adjusted past performance is the only measurement tool. Note I mentioned the phrase “risk-adjusted” – a fund could have achieved a 1-billion-percent increase of capital by winning a $5 bet on the Lotto MAX (into $50 million) which would be very good fund performance, but the risk taken to get that performance was ridiculously stupid.

Most retail investors know nothing about performing this risk calculation when glossing through various promotional literature of mutual funds.

From an individual perspective, you should absolutely crave inefficient capital allocation (e.g. what we are likely seeing in the Vancouver Real Estate market). It causes less capital to chase other assets (which presumably will exhibit relative undervaluation) which you can snap up for cheaper prices. From a macroeconomic perspective, however, it is very unhealthy for economies to have significant inefficiencies, so when the focus of the speculative boom busts, you usually have to content with economic fallout (e.g. late 19th century/early 20th century railroad companies, mid 20th century automakers, the internet stock bubble, 2008 US real estate market etc.).