AI news is driving tech ‘building blocks’ stocks like Nvidia. But another ‘power’ area will also benefit, say these veteran investors

Kneel to your king Wall Street.

After forecasting record revenue backed by a “killer AI app,” Nvidia has teed up the Nasdaq
COMP,
-0.61%

for a powerful Thursday open. Indeed, thanks to that chip maker and a few other generals — Microsoft, Apple, Alphabet, etc.— tech is seemingly unstoppable:

Elsewhere, the Dow
DJIA,
-0.77%

is looking rattled by a Fitch warning over debt wranglings ahead of a long weekend.

But our call of the day is accentuating the positive with some valuable insight on tech investing amid AI mania from a pair of seasoned investors.

Inge Heydorn, partner on the GP Bullhound Global Technology Fund and portfolio manager Jenny Hardy, advise choosing companies carefully given high valuations in some parts of tech that could make earnings vulnerable.

“But looking slightly beyond the volatility, tech has the advantage of being driven by many long-term secular themes which will continue to play out despite a weaker macro,” Hardy told MarketWatch in follow-up comments to an interview with the pair last week. GP Bullhound invests in leading global tech companies, with more than $1 billion in assets under management. 

“We try to make sure we’re exposed to these areas that will be more resilient. AI is the perfect example of that –- none of Microsoft, Amazon or Google will risk falling behind in the AI race -– they will all keep spending, and that will continue to drive earnings for the semiconductor companies that go into these servers higher,” said Hardy, who has worked in the investment industry since 2011.

“The way that we think about investing around [AI] is in the building blocks, the picks and shovels infrastructure, which for us is really the semiconductor companies that go into the training servers and the inference servers,” she said.

Nvidia
NVDA,
-0.49%
,
Advanced Micro Devices
AMD,
+0.14%
,
Taiwan Semiconductor
TSM,
-0.34%

2330,
+3.43%
,
Infineon
IFX,
-0.33%
,
Cisco
CSCO,
-1.02%
,
NXP
NXPI,
-4.88%
,
Microsoft
MSFT,
-0.45%
,
ServiceNow
NOW,
+0.48%

and Palo Alto
PANW,
+7.68%

are all in their portfolio. They also like the semiconductor capital equipment industry — AI beneficiaries and tailwinds from increasingly localized supply chains — with companies including KLA
KLAC,
-1.40%
,
Lam Research
LRCX,
-1.33%
,
ASML
ASML,
-2.15%

and Applied Materials
AMAT,
-1.96%
.

As Hardy points out, “lots of big tech has given us lots of certainty as it relates to AI, lots of certainty as it relates to the amount they are going to spend on AI.”

Enter Nvidia’s results, which Hardy said are proof the “AI spend race has begun…Nvidia’s call featured an impressive roster of companies deploying AI with Nvidia – AT&T, Amgen, ServiceNow – the message was that this technology adoption is widespread and really a new normal.” She said they see benefits spreading across the AI value chain — CPU providers, networking infrastructure players, memory and semicap equipment makers.

Heydorn, who traded technology stocks since 1994 and also runs a hedge fund with Hardy, says there are two big tech trends currently — “AI across the board and power semiconductors driven by EV cars and green energy projects.”

But GP Bullhound steers clear of EV makers like Tesla
TSLA,
-1.54%
,
where they see a lot of competition, notably from China. “Ultimately, they will need semiconductors and the semiconductors crucially are able to keep that pricing power in a way that the vehicle companies are not able to do because of the differences in competition,” she said.

Are the tech duo nervous about anything? “The macro economy is clearly the largest risk and further bank or real-estate problems,” said Heydorn, as Hardy adds that they are watching for second-order impacts on tech.

“One example would be enterprise software businesses with high exposure to financial services, which given those latest problems in that sector, might see a re-prioritization of spend away from new software implementations,” she said.

In the near term, Heydorn says investors should watch out for May sales numbers and any AI mentions from Taiwan via TSMC, mobile chip group MediaTek
2454,
-0.42%

and Apple
AAPL,
+0.16%

supplier Foxxconn
2354,
-0.74%

that may help with guidance for the second half of the year. “The main numbers in Taiwan will tell us where we are in inventories. They’re going to tell us if the 3-nanonmeters, that’s a new processor that’s going into Apple iPhones, are ready for production,” he said.

Read: JPMorgan says this is how much revenue other companies will get from AI this year

The markets

Nasdaq-100 futures
NQ00,
+1.90%

are up 1.8% , S&P 500
ES00,
+0.55%

futures are up 0.6%, but those for the Dow
YM00,
-0.34%

are slipping on debt-ceiling jitters. The yield on the 10-year Treasury note
TMUBMUSD10Y,
3.756%

is up 4 basis points to 3.75%.

For more market updates plus actionable trade ideas for stocks, options and crypto, subscribe to MarketDiem by Investor’s Business Daily. Follow all the stock market action with MarketWatch’s Live Blog.

The buzz

Fitch put U.S. credit ratings on ‘ratings watch negative’ due to DC “brinkmanship” as the debt-ceiling deadline nears. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy told investors not to worry as an agreement will be reached.

Best Buy
BBY,
-0.49%

stock is up 6% after an earnings beat, while Burlington Stores
BURL,
+3.19%

is slipping after a profit and revenue miss. Dollar Tree
DLTR,
-0.50%

and Ralph Lauren
RL,
+0.24%

are still to come, followed by Ulta
ULTA,
+0.17%
,
Costco
COST,
-0.44%

and Autodesk
ADSK,
+0.06%

after the close.

Nvidia is up 25% in premarket and headed toward a rare $1 trillion valuation after saying revenue would bust a previous record by 30% late Wednesday.

Opinion: Nvidia CFO says ‘The inflection point of AI is here’

But AI upstart UiPath
PATH,
-1.74%

is down 8% after soft second-quarter revenue guidance, while software group Snowflake
SNOW,
+1.13%

is off 14% on an outlook cut, while cloud-platform group Nutanix
NTNX,
-0.55%

is rallying on a better outlook.

Elf Beauty
ELF,
+1.69%

is up 12% on upbeat results from the cosmetic group, with Guess
GES,
-0.80%

up 5% as losses slimmed, sales rose. American Eagle
AEO,
+4.50%

slid on a sales decline forecast. Red Robin Gourmet Burgers
RRGB,
+3.51%

is up 5% on the restaurant chain’s upbeat forecast.

Revised first-quarter GDP is due at 8:30 a.m., alongside weekly jobless claims, with pending-home sales at 10 a.m. Richmond Fed President Tom Barkin will speak at 9:50 a.m., followed by Boston Fed President Susan Collins.

A Twitter Spaces discussion between presidential candidate Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and Elon Musk was plagued by glitches.

The best of the web

Before Tina Turner died at 83, she gave us these 5 retirement lessons

Can WallStreetBets’ spectacular short-squeeze be repeated?

Paralyzed walks naturally again with brain and spine implants

The tickers

These were the top-searched tickers on MarketWatch as of 6 a.m.:

Ticker

Security name

NVDA,
-0.49%
Nvidia

TSLA,
-1.54%
Tesla

GME,
+0.47%
GameStop

BUD,
-1.94%
Anheuser-Busch InBev

AMD,
+0.14%
Advanced Micro Devices

PLTR,
-3.24%
Palantir Technologies

AAPL,
+0.16%
Apple

AMZN,
+1.53%
Amazon.com

NIO,
-9.49%
Nio

AI,
+2.54%
C3.ai

Random reads

“No way.” Abba says it won’t perform at 50th anniversary Eurovision win

The Welsh harbor that looks like a dolphin from high above.

Need to Know starts early and is updated until the opening bell, but sign up here to get it delivered once to your email box. The emailed version will be sent out at about 7:30 a.m. Eastern.

Listen to the Best New Ideas in Money podcast with MarketWatch reporter Charles Passy and economist Stephanie Kelton.

Source link

#news #driving #tech #building #blocks #stocks #Nvidia #power #area #benefit #veteran #investors

Would reparations lead to irresponsible spending? Studies on other cash windfalls suggest not, new report says.

The perception that people often succumb to misfortune and bad decision-making after suddenly receiving large amounts of cash isn’t based in fact, researchers said in a report published Thursday by the Roosevelt Institute, a progressive think tank.

That means potential reparations payouts to Black Americans are unlikely to result in reckless spending, financial ruin and reduced labor productivity, the report’s authors wrote after undertaking a review of prior research concerning consumer behavior after lottery windfalls and inheritances, as well as more minor cash transfers through tax refunds and guaranteed-income programs. 

“There’s what we really describe as kind of an urban myth … that people who receive lottery winnings squander the money very quickly,” reparations scholar William “Sandy” Darity, a Duke University professor of public policy and economist who co-authored the report, said in an interview. “The best available evidence indicates that that’s not the case.”

Whether Black residents and descendants of enslaved people in the U.S. are owed reparative payments has been debated for centuries. But as the country has grown more economically unequal while a stubborn racial wealth gap persists, the reparations movement has picked up traction.

In California, a first-of-its-kind state task force on reparations approved a slate of recommendations for lawmakers this month that, if implemented through legislation, would potentially provide hundreds of billions of dollars in reparative monetary payments to Black Californians to address harms caused by factors including racial health disparities, housing discrimination and mass incarceration. San Francisco, which has its own reparations task force, is also considering one-time reparative payments of $5 million for eligible people.

Read more: California task force approves sweeping reparations potentially worth billions of dollars

Still, detractors say that granting reparations to Black Americans — as was done for Japanese Americans incarcerated in internment camps during World War II and, on a state level, for survivors who owned property in the town of Rosewood, Fla., before a race massacre destroyed it — is unwise.

Some argue that giving people reparative payments without requiring certain parameters or personal-finance courses could result in irresponsible spending behavior, or that reparations proposals are themselves racist in suggesting that Black people need “handouts.”

‘One of the important things that lottery winners do with the money is that they frequently set up trust accounts or the equivalent for their children or their grandchildren.’


— William ‘Sandy’ Darity, a leading reparations scholar

The authors of the Roosevelt Institute report, for their part, said the assumption that Black Americans would be unable to handle sudden windfalls is rooted in racism — noting the racial wealth gap wasn’t created through “defective” spending habits but through policies that pumped money into white households, including unequal land distribution and subsidies for homebuyers.

“Widely held, inaccurate, and racist beliefs about dysfunctional financial behavior of Black Americans as the foundation for racial economic inequality leads to a conclusion that monetary reparations will be ineffective in eliminating the gap,” they wrote. “According to this perspective, if eligible Black Americans do not change their financial mindset and behavior after receiving financial reparations, the act of restitution will be empty.”

How people spend lottery winnings and inheritances

Even so, there’s not really “any carefully drawn-out study of what has happened to folks who have received reparations payments,” Darity said. It’s “impossible to understand” the impacts of such programs, because there haven’t historically been “systems in place that give money directly to individuals” — allowing “anecdotal cynicism and urban mythology” to drive the narrative, the report’s authors wrote.

“The best that we could do is try to think about other types of instances in which people have received windfalls where there has been some follow-up on what the consequences have been,” Darity said.

To see how people really react when they’re granted new amounts of money, the authors examined outcomes both from people who had received “major” windfalls — ones that immediately and majorly change a person’s wealth status, like winning the lottery — and “minor” windfalls, or those that affect a person’s income but don’t meaningfully shift their wealth status, like the stimulus checks doled out earlier in the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Darity, who directs Duke University’s Samuel DuBois Cook Center on Social Equity, worked alongside the report’s lead author, Katherine Rodgers, a former research assistant at the Cook Center who currently works as a senior associate at the consulting firm Kroll, as well as Sydney A. Grissom, an analyst for BlackRock. Lucas Hubbard, an associate in research at the Cook Center, was also an author of the report. 

They found that while a person’s behavior can vary based on the windfall amount and how it’s framed to the recipient, as well as their previous economic status, their reactions tend to buck stereotypes. 

For example, only 11% of lottery winners quit their job in the findings of one 1987 study that examined 576 lottery winners across 12 states — and none of the people who got less than $50,000 left work, according to the Roosevelt Institute report. However, people were more likely to quit their jobs if they won a sum worth $1 million, had less education, were making under $100,000 a year, and hadn’t been in their job for more than four years.

Studies of lottery winners in other countries have found similarly muted labor responses, the report said. A separate U.S. study from 1993 of the labor effects on people who had received inheritances ranging from $25,000 to $150,000 or more also found that only a “small but statistically significant percentage of heirs left their jobs after receiving their inheritance,” with workers most likely to leave their jobs if they got a big payout. 

But it’s still “less than what the stereotype would say,” Hubbard said in an interview: 4.6% of individuals quit their jobs after receiving a small inheritance of less than $25,000, compared to 18.2% of workers who got an inheritance of more than $150,000, he noted.

Instead, studies have shown that people who get windfalls may be more likely to become self-employed, participate in financial markets, save, and spend money on necessary goods like housing and transportation, the report’s authors wrote. 

“One of the important things that lottery winners do with the money,” Darity said, “is that they frequently set up trust accounts or the equivalent for their children or their grandchildren.”

Small windfalls, including those offered through monthly checks from guaranteed-income pilot programs, have also been shown to be used for essentials like food and utilities without negative effects on employment. The framing of the money received can also have an effect on how it’s spent, the authors said: People who get a payout from bequests or life insurance tend to have more negative emotions about the money and will use it for more “utilitarian” purposes, according to one 2009 study

From the archives (March 2021): Employment rose among those in California universal-income experiment, study finds

Reparations wouldn’t unleash ‘flagrant spending,’ researchers say

Despite their findings, “windfalls are not magical panaceas for all financial woes,” the authors emphasized.

For example, a 2011 study cited in the report found that among people who were already in precarious financial positions, lottery winnings delayed, rather than prevented, an eventual bankruptcy filing. Another report from 2006 found that “large inheritances led to disproportionately less saving,” the researchers noted in the Roosevelt Institute report.

“Research over the past two decades has demonstrated that their bounties are not limitless, and, crucially, that informed stewardship of received assets is still necessary (albeit, not always sufficient) to achieve and maximize long-term financial success,” the authors wrote.

But they added that reparations, particularly if “framed not as handouts but rather as reparative payments” to Black Americans, would not unleash “flagrant spending on nonessential goods” based on studies on windfalls, and could instead improve recipients’ emotional well-being and financial stability. 

“Of course, the merits of making such payments should not be assessed solely on the basis of the anticipated economic effects,” the authors said. “Moreover, using the absence of evidence of this type as a justification for delaying reparative payments, such as those to Black descendants of American slavery, is inconsistent with the fact that other groups previously have received similar payments in the wake of atrocities and tragedies.”

From the archives (January 2023): How to pay for reparations in California? ‘Swollen’ wealth could replace ‘stolen’ wealth through taxes.

Source link

#reparations #lead #irresponsible #spending #Studies #cash #windfalls #suggest #report

Big bank earnings in spotlight following historic failures: ‘Every income statement line item is in flux’.

JPMorgan Chase & Co.
JPM,
-0.11%
,
Citigroup Inc.
C,
+0.20%

and Wells Fargo & Co.
WFC,
+2.74%

— along with PNC Financial Services Group Inc.
PNC,
+0.37%

and BlackRock Inc.
BLK,
+0.05%

— report earnings Friday as Wall Street’s fixation on a recession continues to run deep. And following the implosion of Silicon Valley Bank
SIVBQ,
-12.21%
,
Signature Bank
SBNY,
+3.97%

and Silvergate Bank
SI,
-2.72%
,
along with efforts to seal up cracks in First Republic Bank
FRC,
+4.39%

and Credit Suisse Group AG
CS,
+1.27%
,
Wall Street is likely to review quarterly numbers from the industry with a magnifying glass.

“Every income statement line item is in flux and the degree of confidence in our forecast is lower as the probability of a sharper slowdown increases,” Morgan Stanley analyst Betsy Graseck said in a note on Wednesday.

For more: Banks on the line for deposit flows and margin pressure as they reel from banking crisis

She said that the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank last month would trigger an “accelerated bid” for customers’ money, potentially weighing on net interest margins, a profitability gauge measuring what banks make on interest from loans and what they pay out to depositors. Tighter lending standards, she said, would drive up net charge-offs — a measure of debt unlikely to be repaid — as borrowers run into more trouble obtaining or refinancing loans.

Phil Orlando, chief investment strategist at Federated Hermes, said in an interview that tighter lending standards could constrain lending volume. He also said that banks were likely to set aside more money to cover loans that go bad, as managers grow more conservative and try to gauge what exposure they have to different types of borrowers.

“To a significant degree, they have to say, what percentage of our companies are tech companies? What percentage are financial companies? Do we think that this starts to dribble into the auto industry?” he said. “Every bank is going to be different in terms of what their portfolio of business looks like.”

He also said that last month’s bank failures could spur more customers to open up multiple accounts at different banks, following bigger concerns about what would happen to the money in a bank account that exceeded the $250,000 limit covered by the FDIC. But as the recent banking disturbances trigger Lehman flashbacks, he said that the recent banking failures were the result of poor management and insufficient risk controls specific to those financial firms.

“COVID was something that affected everyone, universally, not just the banking companies but the entire economy, the entire stock market,” he said. “You go back to the global financial crisis in the ’07-’09 period, that’s something that really affected all of the financial service companies. I don’t think that’s what we’re dealing with here.”

Also read: Banking sector’s growing political might could blunt reform in wake of SVB failure, experts warn

JPMorgan
JPM,
-0.11%

Chief Executive Jamie Dimon has said that Trump-era banking deregulation didn’t cause those bank failures. But in his annual letter to shareholders last week, he also said that the current turmoil in the bank system is not over. However, he also said that the collapse or near-collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and its peers “are nothing like what occurred during the 2008 global financial crisis.”

“Regarding the current disruption in the U.S. banking system, most of the risks were hiding in plain sight,” Dimon said. “Interest rate exposure, the fair value of held-to-maturity (HTM) portfolios and the amount of SVB’s uninsured deposits were always known — both to regulators and the marketplace.”

“The unknown risk was that SVB’s over 35,000 corporate clients – and activity within them – were controlled by a small number of venture capital companies and moved their deposits in lockstep,” Dimon continued. “It is unlikely that any recent change in regulatory requirements would have made a difference in what followed.”

The Federal Reserve’s decision to raise interest rates, along with a broader pullback in digital demand following the first two years of the pandemic, stanched the flow of tech-industry funding into Silicon Valley bank and caused the value of its bond investments to fall.

Don’t miss: An earnings recession seems inevitable, but it might not last long

But the impact of those higher interest rates — an effort to slow the economy and, by extension, bring inflation down — will be felt elsewhere. First-quarter earnings are expected to decline 6.8% for S&P 500 index components overall, according to FactSet. That would be the first decline since the second quarter of 2020, when the pandemic had just begun to send the economy into a tailspin.

“In a word, earnings for the first quarter are going to be poor,” Orlando said.

This week in earnings

For the week ahead, 11 S&P 500
SPX,
+0.36%

components, and two from the Dow Jones Industrial Average
DJIA,
+0.01%
,
will report first-quarter results. Outside of the banks, health-insurance giant UnitedHealth Group
UNH,
+0.70%

reports during the week. Online fashion marketplace Rent the Runway Inc.
RENT,
+3.75%

will also report.

The call to put on your calendar

Delta Air Lines Inc.: Delta
DAL,
+0.69%

reports first-quarter results on Thursday, amid bigger questions about when, if ever, higher prices — including for airfares — might turn off travelers. The carrier last month stuck with its outlook for big first-quarter sales gains when compared with prepandemic levels. “If anyone’s looking for weakness, don’t look at Delta”, Chief Executive Ed Bastian said at a conference last month.

But rival United Airlines Holdings Inc.
UAL,
+1.50%

has told investors to prepare for a surprise loss, even though it also reported a 15% jump in international bookings in March. And after Southwest Airlines Co.’s
LUV,
+0.03%

flight-cancellation mayhem last year brought more attention to technology issues and airline understaffing, concerns have grown over whether the industry has enough air-traffic controllers, prompting a reduction in some flights.

For more: Air-traffic controller shortages could result in fewer flights this summer

But limitations within those airlines’ flight networks to handle consumer demand can push fares higher. And Morgan Stanley said that strong balance sheets, passengers’ willingness to still pay up — albeit in a concentrated industry with a handful of options — and “muscle memory” from being gutted by the pandemic, could make airlines “defensive safe-havens,” to some degree, for investors.

“It is hard to argue against the airlines soaring above the macro storm underneath them (at least in the short term),” the analysts wrote in a research note last week.

The numbers to watch

Grocery-store margins: Albertsons Cos.
ACI,
+0.53%
.
— the grocery chain whose merger deal with Kroger Inc.
KR,
+0.96%

has raised concerns about food prices and accessibility — reports results on Tuesday. Higher food prices have helped fatten grocery stores’ profits, even as consumers struggle to keep up. But Costco Wholesale Corp.
COST,
-2.24%
,
in reporting March same-store sales results, noted that “year-over-year inflation for food and sundries and fresh foods were both down from February.” The results from Albertsons could offer clues on whether shoppers might be getting a break from steep price increases.

Source link

#Big #bank #earnings #spotlight #historic #failures #income #statement #line #item #flux

Biden’s rebuke of a bold, reform-minded crime law makes all Americans less safe

President Joe Biden’s support for a Republican-led effort to nullify the Washington D.C. City Council’s revision of its criminal code, signed into law on Monday, plays into the fear narrative that is being increasingly advanced across the U.S.

Biden could have used his platform and clout to clarify the actual substance of the carefully crafted District of Columbia proposal — and adhere to his campaign commitment to reduce the number of incarcerated Americans.

Instead, the president ignored the glaring problems in D.C.’s existing criminal code, which the 275-page long package of revisions was designed to address. This included reforming the draconian and inflexible sentencing requirements that have swelled the District’s incarceration rate and wasted countless resources imprisoning individuals who pose no danger to public safety. By rejecting this decade-plus effort, the president decided that D.C. residents have no right to determine for themselves how to fix these problems.

There are communities across the U.S. that see virtually no violent crime, and it isn’t because they’re the most policed.

Biden’s decision is the latest backlash to U.S. justice reform coming from both sides of the political aisle.

Instead of doubling down on failed tough-on-crime tactics, Americans need to come together to articulate and invest in a new vision of public safety. We already know what that looks like because there are communities across the country which see virtually no violent crime, and it isn’t because they’re the most policed.

Safe communities are places where people (even those facing economic distress) are housed, where schools have the resources to teach all children, where the water and air are clean, where families have access to good-paying jobs and comprehensive healthcare, and where those who are struggling are given a hand, not a handcuff.

This is the kind of community every American deserves to live in, but that future is only possible if we shift resources from carceral responses to communities and shift our mindset from punishment to prevention. 

Too often it’s easier to advocate for locking people up than it is to innovate and advance a new vision for public safety. 

In the wake of particularly traumatic years, as well as growing divisiveness that has politicized criminal justice reform, it is not surprising that many people believe their communities are less safe. While public perceptions of crime have long been disconnected from actual crime rates and can be heavily influenced by media coverage, the data tells a mixed story. Homicide rates did increase in both urban and rural areas in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and record levels of gun sales.

While early available data suggests these numbers are trending down, it’s too soon to tell, especially given the nation’s poor crime data infrastructure. What is clear is that there is no evidence that criminal justice reform is to blame for rising crime, despite well-funded attempts by those resistant to change and who are intent on driving a political agenda to make such a claim stick. 

Yet fear often obscures facts; people are scared for their safety and want reassurance. Too often it’s easier to advocate for locking people up than it is to innovate and advance a new vision for public safety. 

We need leaders who can govern with both empathy and integrity – who can provide genuine compassion to those who feel scared while also following the data about how to create safer communities. And all the data points to the need for reform. 

Mass incarceration costs U.S. taxpayers an estimated $1 trillion annually.

Mass incarceration costs U.S. taxpayers an estimated $1 trillion annually, when you factor in not only the cost of confinement but also the crushing toll placed on incarcerated people and their families, children, and communities. Despite this staggering figure, there’s no real evidence that incarceration works, and in fact some evidence to suggest it actually makes people more likely to commit future crimes. Yet we keep pouring more and more taxpayer dollars into this short-sighted solution that, instead of preventing harm, only delays and compounds it. 

We have to stop pretending that reform is the real threat to public safety and recognize how our over-reliance on incarceration actually makes us less safe. 

Reform and public safety go hand in hand. Commonsense changes including reforming cash bail, revisiting extreme sentences and diverting people from the criminal legal system have all been shown to have positive effects on individuals and communities.

At a time of record-low clearance rates nationwide and staffing challenges in police departments and prosecutor’s offices, arresting and prosecuting people for low-level offenses that do not impact public safety can actually make us less safe by directing resources away from solving serious crimes and creating collateral consequences for people that make it harder to escape cycles of poverty and crime. 

Yet, tough-on-crime proponents repeatedly misrepresent justice reform by claiming that reformers are simply letting people who commit crimes off the hook. Nothing could be further from the truth. Reform does not mean a lack of accountability, but rather a more effective version of accountability for everyone involved. 

Our traditional criminal legal system has failed victims time and again. In a 2022 survey of crime survivors, just 8% said that the justice system was very helpful in navigating the legal process and being connected to services. Many said they didn’t even report the crime because of distrust of the system. 

When asked what they want, many crime survivors express a fundamental desire to ensure that the person who caused them harm doesn’t hurt them or anyone else ever again. But status quo approaches aren’t providing that. The best available data shows that 7 in 10 people released from prison in 2012 were rearrested within five years. Perhaps that’s why crime victims support alternatives to traditional prosecution and incarceration by large margins. 

For example, in New York City, Common Justice offered the first alternative-to-incarceration program in the country focused on violent felonies in adult courts. When given the option, 90% of eligible victims chose to participate in a restorative justice program through Common Justice over incarcerating the person who harmed them. Just 7% of participants have been terminated from the program for committing a new crime. 

A restorative justice program launched by former San Francisco District Attorney George Gascón for youth facing serious felony charges was shown to reduce participants’ likelihood of rearrest by 44 percent within six months compared to youth who went through the traditional juvenile justice system, and the effects were still notable even four years after the initial offer to participate.

Multnomah County District Attorney Mike Schmidt launched a groundbreaking program last year to allow people convicted of violent offenses to avoid prison time if they commit to behavioral health treatment. As of January, just one of 60 participants had been rearrested for a misdemeanor. 

While too many politicians give lip service to reform, those who really care about justice are doing the work, regardless of electoral consequences. We need more bold, innovative leaders willing to rethink how we achieve safety and accountability, not those who go where the wind blows and spread misinformation for political gain. 

Fear should not cause us to repeat the mistakes of the past. When politicians finally decide to care more about protecting people than protecting their own power, only then will we finally achieve the safety that all communities deserve. 

Miriam Aroni Krinsky is the executive director of Fair and Just Prosecution, a former federal prosecutor, and the author of Change from Within: Reimagining the 21st-Century Prosecutor. Alyssa Kress is the communications director of Fair and Just Prosecution.  

More: Wrongful convictions cost American taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Wrongdoing prosecutors must be held accountable.

Plus: Senate votes to block D.C. crime laws, with Biden’s support

Source link

#Bidens #rebuke #bold #reformminded #crime #law #Americans #safe

White House budget assumes student-debt forgiveness will move forward

Borrowers across the country are in financial limbo as they wait for the Supreme Court to decide whether the White House’s student-debt cancellation plan is legal. But the Biden administration’s own financial planning presumes the initiative will survive the courts. 

As part of the Department of Education’s funding request to Congress for $2.7 billion for the Office of Federal Student Aid, officials took the costs and savings into account of President Joe Biden’s plan to cancel up to $20,000 in student debt for a wide swath of borrowers, Undersecretary of Education James Kvaal said on a conference call with reporters Thursday.  

The “budget assumes that we will move forward,” with the plan, Kvaal said. 

The fiscal-year 2024 funding request unveiled Thursday marks the latest salvo in a battle over the money Congress will give FSA. If the courts allow the Biden administration’s debt-relief plan to move forward, FSA would be charged with implementing it. That’s made FSA funding a flashpoint for congressional Republicans in recent months. But FSA is also responsible for almost every aspect of the financial-aid and student-loan system, something that could be put at risk if the office doesn’t get enough money from Congress. 

Biden administration officials didn’t provide much detail on the call with reporters about how debt cancellation impacted the Department of Education’s request for funding for FSA. Implementing the debt-relief plan would likely be a cost, but wiping borrowers off the books could also save the agency money because there would be fewer accounts to deal with. 

“My assumption is that if you take cancellation into account, the budget request would be smaller than it would be if you assume cancellation is not happening,” said Sarah Sattelmeyer, the project director for education, opportunity and mobility in the Higher Education Initiative at New America, a think tank.  

That could create challenges if the court strikes down debt cancellation, she said. “The bottom line is, really we need to make sure there are sufficient resources for any situation that might happen with FSA,” she said. “That’s the most important because when there aren’t sufficient funds, students and borrowers bear the brunt of that.” 

Like the IRS, FSA may not ‘seem sexy,’ but it’s important

Though FSA is not a household name, the office is in charge of all sorts of seemingly wonky tasks that touch almost every student and borrower. FSA oversees the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, which college students use to apply for loans and grants; it disperses student loans to borrowers; manages the companies collecting student-loan payments; monitors colleges for wrongdoing and more. 

That’s why many researchers and student-loan borrower advocates were concerned when Congress level-funded FSA last year, despite a request from the Department of Education for an uptick of $800 million. Congressional Republicans touted the decision as providing “no new funding for the implementation of the Biden administration’s student-loan forgiveness plan.” 

Dominique Baker, an associate professor of education policy at Southern Methodist University, compared FSA to the Internal Revenue Service. “It doesn’t always seem sexy,” to lawmakers to increase funding for these types of bodies, she said, but a lack of funds can have a real impact. 

She cited delays in borrowers qualifying for relief under already existing programs as one impact of an underfunded FSA. Last year, the Department of Education said that student-loan servicers weren’t properly tracking the number of payments borrowers made toward qualifying for forgiveness under certain student-loan repayment plans.   

“It is important to ensure that college is affordable,” Baker said. “It is sometimes easier to talk about funding pieces that make college more affordable than it is to talk about compliance and regulatory bodies that are ensuring that this one piece of paper that gets shuffled over to this other desk happens in a timely manner.” If it doesn’t, she added, “you will accidentally pay five months of extra loan payments past when your debt should have been canceled.”  

Over the past few years, FSA has been asked to do even more than what’s typically required. Many of the Biden administration’s initiatives to improve the student-loan experience, including making it easier for borrowers to access Public Service Loan Forgiveness and proposing sweeping changes to the way borrowers repay their student loans, fall under FSA’s purview. 

In addition, FSA is in the middle of overhauling its student-loan servicing contracts in an aim to provide a better experience for borrowers. Things like giving more direction to student-loan servicers about how they communicate with borrowers about their loans, and ensuring student-loan companies are more responsive to issues borrowers and regulators have raised in litigation, are part of that effort and will require resources, said Clare McCann, a higher-education fellow at Arnold Ventures.

“All of that is incredibly important to making sure borrowers are going to have a smooth transition back into repayment, when that does happen,” she said. 

It’s too early to say which of these priorities could be at risk because of Congress’ decision to level-fund FSA last year, Sattelmeyer said. “We don’t have a great idea yet of the tradeoffs FSA is going to make, but they’re going to have to make tradeoffs,” she said. 

For fiscal-year 2024, the Biden administration has asked for a $620 million increase over the amount that Congress enacted for fiscal-year 2023. And if FSA doesn’t get that funding increase, researchers and advocates worry the office will continue to have to make tradeoffs that could hurt students and borrowers.

“D.C. is and remains a political town,” Sattelmeyer said of the possibility that the department’s funding increase for FSA could fall victim to the same forces that scuttled it last year. “I can’t predict the future, but I can say that it is really important to message,” through the budget, “that FSA needs additional resources,” she said. “It’s also important for practitioners and advocates and others in this space to be pushing for additional resources.” 

Source link

#White #House #budget #assumes #studentdebt #forgiveness #move

India is becoming a hot market for investors, but it risks falling victim to its own success

India is poised to become the world’s most important country in the medium term. It has the world’s largest population (which is still growing), and with a per capita GDP that is just one-quarter that of China’s, its economy has enormous scope for productivity gains.

Moreover, India’s military and geopolitical importance will only grow. It is a vibrant democracy whose cultural diversity will generate soft power to rival the United States and the United Kingdom.

One must credit Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi for implementing policies that have modernized India and supported its growth. Specifically, Modi has made massive investments in the single market (including through de-monetization and a major tax reform) and infrastructure (not just roads, electricity, education, and sanitation, but also digital capacity). These investments – together with industrial policies to accelerate manufacturing, a comparative advantage in tech and IT, and a customized digital-based welfare system – have led to robust economic performance following the COVID-19 slump.

These investments — together with industrial policies to accelerate manufacturing, a comparative advantage in tech and IT, and a customized digital-based welfare system — have led to robust economic performance following the COVID-19 slump.

Yet the model that has driven India’s growth now threatens to constrain it. The main risks to India’s development prospects are more micro and structural than macro or cyclical. First, India has moved to an economic model where a few “national champions” — effectively large private oligopolistic conglomerates — control significant parts of the old economy. This resembles Indonesia under Suharto (1967-98), China under Hu Jintao (2002-12), or South Korea in the 1990s under its dominant chaebols.

In some ways, this concentration of economic power has served India well. Owing to superior financial management, the economy has grown fast, despite investment rates (as a share of GDP) that were much lower than China’s. The implication is that India’s investments have been much more efficient; indeed, many of India’s conglomerates boast world-class levels of productivity and competitiveness.

But the dark side of this system is that these conglomerates have been able to capture policymaking to benefit themselves. This has had two broad, harmful effects: it is stifling innovation and effectively killing early-stage startups and domestic entrants in key industries; and it is changing the government’s “Make in India” program into a counterproductive, protectionist scheme.

We may now be seeing these effects reflected in India’s potential growth, which seems to have declined rather than accelerated recently. Just as the Asian Tigers did well in the 1980s and 1990s with a growth model based on gross exports of manufactured goods, India has done the same with exports of tech services. Make in India was intended to strengthen the economy’s tradable side by fostering the production of goods for export, not just for the Indian market.

Instead, India is moving toward more protectionist import-substitution and domestic production subsidization (with nationalistic overtones), both of which insulate domestic industries and conglomerates from global competition. Its tariff policies are preventing it from becoming more competitive in goods exports, and its resistance to joining regional trade agreements is hampering its full integration into global value and supply chains.

India should be focusing on industries where it has a comparative advantage, such as tech and IT, artificial intelligence, business services, and fintech.

Another problem is that Make in India has evolved to support production in labor-intensive industries such as cars, tractors, locomotives, trains, and so forth. While the labor intensity of production is an important factor in any labor-abundant country, India should be focusing on industries where it has a comparative advantage, such as tech and IT, artificial intelligence, business services, and fintech. It needs fewer scooters, and more Internet of Things startups. Like many of the other successful Asian economies, policymakers should nurture these dynamic sectors by establishing special economic zones. Absent such changes, Make in India will continue to produce suboptimal results.

The recent saga surrounding the Adani Group is symptomatic of a trend that will eventually hurt India’s growth.

Finally, the recent saga surrounding the Adani Group
512599,
-4.98%

is symptomatic of a trend that will eventually hurt India’s growth. It is possible that Adani’s rapid growth was enabled by a system in which the government tends to favor certain large conglomerates and the latter benefit from such closeness while supporting policy goals.

Again, Modi’s policies have deservedly made him one of the most popular political leaders at home and in the world today. He and his advisers are not personally corrupt, and their Bharatiya Janata Party will justifiably win re-election in 2024 regardless of this scandal. But the optics of the Adani story are concerning.

There is a perception that the Adani Group may be, in part, helping to support the state political machinery and finance state and local projects that would otherwise go unfunded, given local fiscal and technocratic constraints. In this sense, the system may be akin to “pork barrel” politics in the US, where certain local projects get earmarked in a legal (if not entirely transparent) congressional vote-buying process.

Supposing that this interpretation is even partly correct, Indian authorities might reply that the system is “necessary” to accelerate infrastructure spending and economic development. Even so, this practice would be toxic, and it would represent a wholly different flavor of realpolitik compared to, say, India’s vast purchases of Russian oil since the start of the Ukraine War.

While those shipments still account for less than one-third of India’s total energy purchases, they have come at a significant discount. Given per capita GDP of around $2,500, it is understandable that India would avail itself of lower-cost energy. Complaints by Western countries that are 20 times richer are simply not credible.

The scandal surrounding the Adani empire does not seem to extend beyond the conglomerate itself, but the case does have macro implications for India’s institutional robustness and global investors’ perceptions of India. The Asian financial crisis of the 1990s demonstrated that, over time, the partial capture of economic policy by crony capitalist conglomerates will hurt productivity growth by hampering competition, inhibiting Schumpeterian “creative destruction,” and increasing inequality.

It is thus in Modi’s long-term interest to ensure that India does not go down this path. India’s long-term success ultimately depends on whether it can foster and sustain a growth model that is competitive, dynamic, sustainable, inclusive, and fair.

Nouriel Roubini, professor emeritus of economics at New York University’s Stern School of Business, is chief economist at Atlas Capital Team and the author of “Megathreats: Ten Dangerous Trends That Imperil Our Future, and How to Survive Them” (Little, Brown and Company, 2022).

This commentary was published with permission of Project Syndicate —
India at a Crossroads

More: This perfect storm of megathreats is even more dangerous than the 1970s or the 1930s.

Also read: Freeing the U.S. economy from China will create an American industrial renaissance and millions of good-paying jobs

Source link

#India #hot #market #investors #risks #falling #victim #success

Starbucks workers contend company is busting unions. ‘This will be a priority for me,’ congressman says.

SANTA CLARA, CALIF. — Starbucks Corp. employees met with U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna at his California office on Friday and contended the company is retaliating against employees who unionize or are trying to organize, and is not bargaining in good faith.

The giant coffee chain denies those allegations. But what the Democratic congressman from Silicon Valley heard Friday from Starbucks
SBUX,
-0.41%

employees and union representatives in a meeting attended by MarketWatch echoes other complaints from around the nation that the company is engaging in union-busting — and he vowed to continue to try to help make sure the employees are treated fairly.

Edith Saldano, who works at a location in Santa Cruz County, sat next to the congressman and told him that the company “has embarrassed us over and over again and has not respected us.” Saldano said that during her store’s first bargaining session in November, Starbucks’ lawyers walked out after three minutes.

Saldano fought back tears as she recounted that she had “waited all day” and lost out on a day’s worth of work, which she really needed because she was “houseless” at the time in an area known for its high cost of living. She handed Khanna the employees’ contract proposal.

“We’re asking that you read it over and that you talk to them,” said Saldano, who added that she also sits on the national bargaining committee.

Khanna agreed to take a look and told Saldano: “I appreciate you for fighting not just for yourself but for everyone.”

The congressman has prided himself on being pro-labor and standing with low-wage workers, including Silicon Valley janitors and California’s fast-food workers, through the years. Khanna told the Starbucks employees Friday he has also met with the company’s unionized workers in Los Angeles, and that he hopes to help persuade the company — which is in transition and is set to have its new chief executive officially take over in a couple of months — change its approach to the growing movement to unionize at hundreds of its stores.

The National Labor Relations Board has accused Starbucks of illegally firing workers who have unionized, and the company is facing hundreds of charges of violating labor laws. Judges have ruled against the company in some of those cases. Starbucks in turn has filed complaints with the NLRB, accusing the union of not bargaining in good faith.

In-depth: Unions’ push at Amazon, Apple and Starbucks could be ‘most significant moment in the American labor movement’ in decades

A couple of other Starbucks employees who asked to remain anonymous for fear of reprisal at a Bay Area store where they’re seeking to unionize also gave emotional testimonies at Khanna’s office on Friday. They spoke of having their hours reduced to the point where they don’t qualify for benefits, and being understaffed and overworked in physically demanding jobs.

“They run us into the ground until we’re too fatigued, and we’re replaced with cheaper baristas,” one of the employees said. “We’re organizing because we’re powerless as individuals.”

The other said Starbucks “is dominating the market by any means necessary,” and that employees “need the support of congressmen” and other leaders.

Brandon Dawkins, vice president of organizing for SEIU Local 1021, said possible retaliation by the company is also “putting fear into stores that want to unionize… they see what the unionized workers are going through.”

Khanna thanked the employees for their “courage,” and said “this will be a priority for me just like last Congress,” and outlined how he plans to continue to try to help.

Starbucks spokesman Andrew Trull said Friday that allegations that the company has not bargained in good faith are “simply false.” Trull said Starbucks has “come to the table” for more than 85 bargaining sessions at different stores since October.

“At each of these sessions with Workers United, Starbucks has been met by union representatives who insist on broadcasting in-person sessions to unknown individuals not in the room and, in some instances, have posted excerpts of the sessions online,” Trull said.

As for the allegations that Starbucks is reducing the number of hours available for employees who unionize, Trull said “Starbucks has a longstanding practice of adjusting store hours to reflect seasonal changes in customer demand.”

A spokesperson for Starbucks Workers United said longtime Starbucks employees say “the current pattern of reducing hours does not fit the history in the company.” In addition, the union spokesperson said the company is complicating scheduling of meetings by not allowing bargaining committee members unpaid time off; that the union and the company have agreed to virtual bargaining sessions; and that the union introduces participants for every meeting.

Outgoing Starbucks Chief Executive Howard Schultz refused to appear before a Senate committee last week that wanted to ask him about the accusations of labor-law violations by the company.

The company’s letter to Sanders said that since Schultz is on his way out as CEO, the company was offering its chief public affairs officer, Al Jones, to appear before the committee instead.

The chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, Democratic Sen. Bernie Sanders, said in a statement lasst week that he intends “to hold Mr. Schultz and Starbucks accountable for their unacceptable behavior.”

In October, Khanna and 30 other lawmakers sent a letter to Schultz, urging him and the company to work with the unions that have formed at hundreds of Starbucks stores around the nation.

For more: Starbucks urged to work with unions in letter from members of Congress

Since then, the congressman’s staff has been in touch with the company, whose representatives have told them that Starbucks is allowing workers to exercise their rights under the National Labor Relations Act.

Khanna told the employees on Friday that he has corresponded with new Starbucks CEO Laxman Narasimhan and expects to meet with him after he takes over April 1.

“I’m hopeful that between the approach to him and the approach to some of the board members, who I know, that they may see the light — allowing for reasonable unionization and reasonable terms,” Khanna said. He mentioned that Microsoft Corp.
MSFT,
-1.56%

last year came to a neutrality agreement with the Communications Workers of America; Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella is a Starbucks board member.

Source link

#Starbucks #workers #contend #company #busting #unions #priority #congressman

‘Gaslighters have two signature moves’: Are you being gaslighted at work? Here’s how to recognize the signs.

Are you less happy at work since you befriended that new recruit? Have they told you stories about how colleagues have constantly undermined them? Maybe you have a boss who excludes you from key meetings and then asks why you did not attend a meeting even though you are pretty sure you were not invited to begin with. If any of this rings true, you may be working with a gaslighter.

Gaslighters, as the name suggests, cast themselves in a positive light — friend or confidante who is here to help — but actually are manipulating or undermining others, usually from the shadows, which adds to their potential power.

Merriam-Webster named “gaslighting” the word of the year. Searches for the word on Merriam-Webster.com surged 1,740% in 2022 over the prior year, despite there not being an event that the publisher — known for its dictionaries — could point to as a cause of the spike.

It defines gaslighting as “psychological manipulation of a person usually over an extended period of time that causes the victim to question the validity of their own thoughts, perception of reality, or memories and typically leads to confusion, loss of confidence and self-esteem, uncertainty of one’s emotional or mental stability, and a dependency on the perpetrator.”

The term was coined in a 1938 play, “Gas Light,” a psychological thriller set in Victorian London and written by Patrick Hamilton.

George Cukor’s 1944 film, “Gaslight,” based on the play, further popularized the term. In that film, Gregory (Charles Boyer) tries to convince his wife Paula (Ingrid Bergman) that she has lost her reason. When he turns on the lights in the attic in his search for a treasure trove of hidden jewels, the gaslight flickers in the rest of the house. He tells Paula that she is merely imagining the dimming of the lights.

‘Jerks at work’ or actual gaslighters?

The workplace is fertile ground for such behavior, given what’s at stake: money, power, status, promotion, rivalry and the intrigue that often comes with office politics. 

I’m in the business of helping people work out their conflicts at work. In fact, I dedicated a whole chapter in my book, “Jerks at Work,” to gaslighters. 

‘For gaslighters, slow and steady wins the race, and the best ones make friends with their victims first.’

What has surprised me is how wide-ranging the definition of “gaslighting” has become. Everything from “not respecting personal boundaries” to “talking so much shit about me I couldn’t get hired for two years” seems to fall under the “gaslighting” umbrella. 

What I’ve learned from my doom scrolling on social media is that the word “gaslighter” — probably the worst name to bestow on a colleague or boss — seems to refer to anyone who’s done a whole bunch of bad things to us at work, especially things that involve humiliation. 

So what really is a gaslighter, and why is it important to distinguish one from, say, a demeaning boss with a chip on their shoulder and a penchant for public shaming?

If we stick to the clinical definition, gaslighters have two signature moves: They lie with the intent of creating a false reality, and they cut off their victims socially. 

They position themselves as both savior and underminer, creating a negative and fearful atmosphere, spreading gossip and taking credit for other people’s work. They are often jealous and resentful, and aim to undercut others in order to further their own position.

In the workplace, you may also be an unwitting pawn in the gaslighting of another colleague.

You may also be an unwitting pawn in the gaslighting of another colleague. The gaslighter might try to convince you that Johnny is trying to steal your leadership role on a project, and encourage you to freeze him out in the cafeteria at lunch time, or simply be extra wary about sharing important information.

For gaslighters, slow and steady wins the race, and the best ones make friends with their victims first. For this reason, it could also be considered a form of workplace harassment.

They often flatter them, make them feel special. Others create a fear of speaking up in their victims by making their position at work seem more precarious than it is. And the lies are complex, coming at you in layers. It takes a long time to realize your status as a victim of gaslighting, and social isolation is a necessary part of this process. 

‘It takes a long time to realize your status as a victim of gaslighting, and social isolation is a necessary part of this process.’

Take smart action — no direct confrontration

There’s a difference between an annoying coworker or micromanaging boss, and a gaslighter, who lies and conspires to undermine your position. “The gaslighter doesn’t want you to improve or succeed — they’re out to sabotage you,” according to the careers website Monster.com. “They will accuse you of being confused or mistaken, or that you took something they said the wrong way because you are insecure. They might even manipulate paper trails to “prove” they are right.”

Examples cited by Monster.com: “You know you turned in a project, but the gaslighter insists you never gave it to them. You can tell someone has been in your space, moving things around, or even on your computer, but you don’t have proof. You are the only one not included in a team email or meeting invite, or intentionally kept out of the loop. Then when you don’t respond or show up, you are reprimanded.”

Knowing this, what can you do to prevent yourself from becoming a target? First, recognize that gaslighters don’t wear their strategy on their sleeve. Flattery, making you feel like you’re a part of a special club, or questioning your expertise are not things that raise gaslighting alarm bells. 

Rather than looking out for mean behavior by a boss or coworker, look out for signs of social isolation. A boss who wants to cut you off from coworkers and other leaders should raise red flags, even if the reason is that “you’re better than them.” 

Second, recognize that lie detection is a precarious — and from a scientific perspective, almost impossible — business. Don’t try to become a lie detector, instead take notes, so you can put your “gaslighter” on notice that you are wise to their tactics. You can also use the notes as evidence if you decide to later raise the situation with your human resources department. 

Here are some ways to beat the gaslighter: Send emails with “a summary of today’s meeting” so you can document the origin of ideas and make sure they don’t steal credit from you. Furthermore, document things that happened in person, and share it with your would-be gaslighter. And speak up at meetings. Don’t allow yourself to be browbeaten into submission. 

The more you document, the more difficult it will be to be victimized. But a word of warning: Don’t try to confront gaslighters — instead, go to your social network to build your reality back up. Trying to beat these folks at their own game is a losing strategy.

Any of these actions, and especially a combination done early in a professional relationship, can work wonders protecting yourself and your career. 

Tessa West is a New York University social psychology professor with a particular interest in workplace behavior, and author of “Jerks at Work: Toxic Coworkers and What to Do About Them.

Related stories:

‘We’re like rats in a cage’: Sick and tired of their jobs, American workers strive to regain their agency, their time — and their sanity

People are seeking a genuine connection with their colleagues’ — one that goes beyond ‘Hollywood Squares’ Zoom meetings. Not all workers are happy with remote work.

The backlash to quiet quitting smacks of another attempt by the ruling class to get workers back under their thumbs:’ Am I wrong?

We want to hear from readers who have stories to share about the effects of increasing costs and a changing economy. If you’d like to share your experience, write to [email protected]. Please include your name and the best way to reach you. A reporter may be in touch.

Source link

#Gaslighters #signature #moves #gaslighted #work #Heres #recognize #signs

Financial Face-off: Should you opt for a high-deductible health plan with lower monthly costs?

Hello and welcome to Financial Face-off, a MarketWatch column where we help you weigh financial decisions. Our columnist will give her verdict. Tell us whether you think she’s right in the comments. And please share your suggestions for future Financial Face-off columns by emailing our columnist at [email protected]

It’s the time of year to sign up for a new health insurance plan, either through an employer or through the government’s Health Insurance Marketplace.

The decision may feel especially fraught this year. High inflation, layoffs and a potential recession are weighing on people’s minds and finances. Americans have been tightening their budgets and may be looking for ways to save money on their health-insurance costs. One way to do that, at least in terms of upfront costs, could be to sign up for a high-deductible health plan. These plans typically have lower monthly costs (premiums), but they have higher deductibles, or, the amount of money that you have to pay out of your own pocket before the insurance kicks in to cover healthcare costs.

So is this the year to try to save some cash by signing up for a high-deductible health plan?

Why it matters

It’s no secret that healthcare is expensive in the U.S., but the language of health insurance often obscures that reality with euphemisms such as “cost-sharing,” “coinsurance,” “copay” and “deductible.” Here’s a quick translation: if you see one of those terms, just mentally replace it with a dollar sign, because it means you will be paying money.

Choosing a healthcare plan is important. Medical bills can strain a household’s finances, and healthcare debt is very common. More than half (57%) of Americans have incurred debt caused by a medical or dental expense in the last five years, according to a nationally representative survey released in June by KFF, an independent nonprofit that researches healthcare issues.

One of the survey’s more troubling findings was that even people who have health insurance fall into debt, with more than four in 10 insured adults reporting that they currently had health-related debt.

In other words, the decision about which health-insurance plan to choose can have far-reaching unintended consequences.

How much can you expect to pay for health insurance? If you get yours through your job, it depends on several factors including the size of your company and the age of its workforce. On average, workers with employer-based health insurance paid $6,106 per year toward family coverage and $1,327 for individual coverage, according to KFF. People at smaller companies typically have higher premiums and bigger deductibles.

The federal government defines a high-deductible health plan as one with a deductible of at least $1,400 for an individual and $2,800 for a family.

High-deductible health plans (HDHPs) often — but not always — come with a health savings account (HSA) where people can store money tax-free to pay for medical expenses.

‘Medical debt really can be the gift that keeps on giving.’


— Karen Pollitz, a senior fellow at KFF

HDHPs have lower premiums, but are they more affordable in the long run than traditional health plans? ValuePenguin compared HDHPs vs. traditional plans in three scenarios and found that the HDHP plan holder would end up paying more overall than the traditional plan holder if they had medical expenses of $5,000 or $10,000 in a year.

However, the HDHP holder had lower overall costs than the traditional plan holder if their medical expenses were $1,000. “But banking on such an outcome — and such low need for medical care — can be a gamble in an unpredictable world,” ValuePenguin wrote.

The verdict

If you can pay the higher monthly costs, avoid a high-deductible health plan.

My reasons

“It’s very difficult to accurately predict what your healthcare needs are going to be for the coming year. And for that reason, it’s a good idea to sign up for the most comprehensive plan option that you can afford,” said Karen Pollitz, a senior fellow at KFF. Buying the cheapest option can open you up to the possibility that something is going to happen — you’ll get hit by a car, find a lump — and then “you’re going to find out the hard way how much your plan doesn’t cover and what you’re going to owe out of pocket,” Pollitz said.

As the KFF survey found, medical debt is common even among people with health insurance, she noted. “There are lots of reasons for that, but high deductibles are one culprit,” Pollitz said.

That debt can have serious long-term consequences, including wrecking your credit score or forcing you to cut back on other household expenses including essentials like groceries, utilities, and rent. You may even get into a situation where doctors refuse to treat you if you’re not paying your bills on time, leading you to delay needed health care. “Medical debt really can be the gift that keeps on giving,” Pollitz said, referencing the ongoing negative impacts on people’s finances.

Is my verdict best for you?

On the other hand, HDHPs with health savings accounts attached to them can make good financial sense for “one group,” Pollitz said: people who are “wealthy enough to need a tax-preferred savings mechanism” and can afford to pay whatever health costs may arise. “Partners in law firms usually sign up for them, but the associates and secretaries usually would prefer not to,” she added.

Health savings accounts (HSAs) are a great way to grow wealth over time, said Eric Roberge, a certified financial planner and founder of Beyond Your Hammock, a Boston-based fee-only financial planning firm. “You get to contribute pre-tax dollars, and any growth on the money you invest within the HSA is tax-free as well,” he told MarketWatch. “If you withdraw money and use it on qualified medical expenses, that is also tax-free. It’s the only account that provides this triple tax advantage.” After age 65, you can use your HSA money for anything, not just medical expenses, but you will have to pay taxes on the withdrawals.

A high-deductible health plan with an HSA can work well if you are young, and healthy and don’t incur a lot of medical costs. But if you use medical services frequently or have a lot of high-cost prescriptions, for example, this might not be the best option, because the cost of the high-deductible health plan might not be worth the access to the HSA, Roberge noted. “For folks who can manage their healthcare bills without issue while they’re earning an income from their job and don’t usually have a lot of medical costs each year, opting for the HDHP can not only save you on premiums each year, but it also gives you a chance to grow wealth for the long-term in a highly tax-advantaged way via an HSA,” Roberge said.

Source link

#Financial #Faceoff #opt #highdeductible #health #plan #monthly #costs