Before I write my piece, I want to say a word about the virtue of voting for third party candidates for President. Personally, I would like to see an option where we can vote for None of the Above, on all races. That would allow us to break the duopolistic power of the Democrats and Republicans without having to have a viable third party. The ability to reject all of the candidates so that a new election would have to be held with new candidates would be powerful, and would make both parties more sensitive to all of the voters, not just minorities on the left and right.
Still, I’m voting for a third party candidate mostly as a protest. I consider the protest to be an investment, because it has no value for the current election, but may have value for future elections if it teaches the two main parties that they no longer have a stranglehold on the electorate. The cost of doing so in this election for President is minuscule, because both candidates are dishonest egotists.
Character matters; if a person is not honest you will not get what you thought you were voting for. In this election, more than most, people are projecting onto Hillary and Donald what they want to see. Trump is not a man of the people, and neither is Clinton. They are both elitist snobs; they are members of rival cliques that dominate their respective parts of the main country club that the privileged enjoy.
The post was originally published here. Highlights: Resolving gas supply issues ensures longevity A pioneer in renewable energy should be future proof Undemanding valuation could lead to re-rating Q1 2022 hedge fund letters, conferences and more
There is no loss in not voting for them. If you want to send a message, vote for someone other than Clinton or Trump.
Of Milk Cows and Moats
It’s become fashionable to talk about moats in investing as an analogy for sustainable competitive advantages. Buffett popularized it, and many use it in investment analysis today. Morningstar has made a lot out of it.
I’d like to talk about the concept from a broader societal angle. This may look like a divergence from talk on investing, but it does have a significant influence on some investing.
I live in the great state of Maryland. A while ago, I wrote an award-winning piece on publicly traded companies in Maryland. My main conclusion was that many corporations are in Maryland because the founder lived here. Other corporations were in Maryland because of the talent available to manage healthcare firms, defense firms, hotels, and REITs. Only the last one, REITs, had any significant advantage imparted by the state itself — Maryland was the first state with a statute allowing for REITs.
Why do corporations leave Maryland? Well, when a merger takes place, the acquirer usually figures out that the company would likely be better off reducing its presence in Maryland, and increasing its presence elsewhere. Costs, taxes and regulation will be lower. The countervailing advantage of an educated workforce is usually not enough to keep jobs here, unless that is the main input to what the firm does, such as biotechnology — hard to beat the advantage of having Johns Hopkins, NIH, and the University of Maryland nearby.
All of this suggests a model of businesses and people entering and leaving an area that is akin to the moats we describe in business. Most businesses know that it will be expensive to move.
- They will lose people, or, it will be costly to move them
- There will be an interruption to operations in some ways.
- The educational quality of people might not be as great in the new area.
- Some taxes and regulations could be higher.
Thus to induce a move, another municipality might offer incentives of tax abatement, a low interest loan, etc. The attracting municipality is making a business decision — what do they give up in taxes (and have to spend on services) versus what they gain in other taxes, etc. The attracting municipality also assumes that there will be some stickiness when the incentives run out. If you need an analogy, it is not that much different than what it takes to attract and retain a major league sports franchise.
What municipalities lose businesses and people? Those that treat them like milk cows. Take a look at the states, counties and cities that have lost vitality, and will find that is one of the two factors in play, the other being a concentrated industry mix in where the dominant industry is in decline.
The more a municipality tries to milk its businesses and people, the more the businesses begin to hit their flinch point, and look for greener pastures. With the loss of businesses and people, they may try to raise taxes to compensate, leading to a self-reinforcing cycle that eventually leads to insolvency.
A municipality can fight back by offering its own incentives to retain companies and people. This can lead to a version of the prisoners’ dilemma, or a “race to the bottom” as corporations play off municipalities against each other in order to get the best deal possible. There is an analogy to war here, because the mobile enemy has significant advantages. There is an analogy to antitrust as well, because municipal governments are allowed to collude against corporations, and it would be to their advantage to do so, if they could agree.
In a game like this, the healthiest municipalities have the strongest bargaining position — they can offer the best deals. There is a tendency for the strong to get stronger and the weak weaker. Past prudence has its rewards. Present prudence is costly, both economically and politically, is difficult to achieve, and future people will benefit who will not remember you politically.
One more note: Maryland has another problem, which affects some of my friends in the industry who have Maryland-centric.investment management practices. (My firm is national. More of my clients are outside of Maryland than inside.) When wealthy people in Maryland retire, their probability of leaving Maryland goes up, as the “moat” of their Maryland job disappears. Again states can adjust their tax policies to try to retain people in their states. On the other hand, some attempt to tax former residents who earned their pensions in their states, and things like that.
This is just another example of how municipalities have limits to the amount they can tax before the tax base erodes.
(Dare we mention how the internet is still costing states some of their sales taxes? Nah, too well known.)
When considering businesses that rely on a given locality, ask how the health of the locality affects the business. It’s worth considering. For those who invest in municipal bonds, it is a critical factor. Particularly as the Baby Boomers age, weak municipalities will come under pressure. Stick with strong municipalities, and services that would be impossible to do without.
Finally, think about your own life. Is it possible:
- that your firm could move and leave you behind?
- that your taxes could rise significantly because businesses and people are leaving?
- that your taxes could rise significantly because state employee benefit plans are deeply underfunded?
- that your municipal job could be put in danger because of prior weak economic decisions on the part of the municipality?
- that real estate prices could fall if the exodus of people from your area accelerates?
Then consider what your own “plan B” might be, and remember, earlier actions to leave are better actions if you are correct. The options are always lousy once an economic bust arrives.