The Loss Generation

Chapdog

Abreast of the situations
Great article. Its like me and my roommates.

The Loss Generation
Young Americans are more cautious, less hopeful about nation's economy

By Jenn Abelson, Globe Staff * March 8, 2009

It was spring 1995, and four Bentley College roommates had plastered the walls of their Waltham apartment with more job offers than rejection letters. The economy was growing, and stocks were on the rise. The guys were feeling good, the way college graduates could back then, confident that they would make it big in business.

By 2001, Craig Berlinski and C.C. Chapman were earning more than their parents combined, and their college roommates Jim Spoto and Greg Maynard had made tens of thousands of dollars in the stock market.

Like many in their generation, the four roommates believed in an ever-expanding economy and an unstoppable stock market. But now, Berlinski keeps extra money in savings accounts and refuses to look at his retirement fund. Maynard and Spoto have watched their investments drop more than 50 percent. And most of Chapman's savings were wiped out when he carried two mortgages because he couldn't sell his house after buying a new one.

Their first decade out of the school will be remembered not for its unprecedented boom, but for the striking string of bubbles that have burst: technology, housing, stocks. This recession's stunning job losses, plunging home values, and plummeting portfolios have turned 30-somethings uncharacteristically cautious. It's a sweeping shift in psychology for a group that is entering its prime earning and spending years - one that could turn them into a generation of savers and have a lasting effect on the economy.

"If I didn't have the memories of the good times, it wouldn't be so hard to accept now," said Berlinski, 36, who described the high life working at EMC between 1997 and 2004. He traveled the world, ate out most nights, grew his brokerage account to $50,000, and watched the Hopkinton tech company's stock break $100. (Today it's at about $10.) "But it was fiction. And it has changed my mind and my approach."

Thirty-somethings have been hit particularly hard by the current financial crisis, which last week sent the Dow Jones industrials average to its lowest level since 1997. Blame it on bad timing. They often bought homes and stocks at or near their peaks and now face the steepest losses. Indeed, over the past decade, this group has seen a greater accumulation and loss of wealth than any other age cohort, according to financial analysts. In 2007, households headed by someone under age 35 had an average household net worth of about $106,000, said Michael Feroli, an economist at JPMorgan who recently detailed the trend in a report titled "The Young and the Leveraged." That sum plunged 28 percent to $76,000 by the end of 2008, the largest drop among all age groups. Meanwhile, the percentage of 30-somethings taking hardship withdrawals from their retirement plans jumped to 2.6 percent at the end of last year from 0.9 percent in 2000, according to Fidelity Investments.

"The investing experience over the past 10 years has totally skewed their view of the way markets typically work. It's definitely going to change the way this group does longer-term investing," said Sharon Rich, a financial planner in Belmont. "You saw after the Depression that the mentality of conservative investing - leaving it under the mattress or in the bank - lasted a generation."

Such an attitude could stunt the economic recovery. That's because this age group is entering a period normally characterized by sustained spending, whether it's starting a family, buying a bigger home, or getting another car.

Nigel Gault, chief US economist at IHS Global Insight, said many 30-somethings could be reluctant to return to stock investments after their harsh realization that what goes way up can come crashing down quickly. A new fiscal prudence and increased savings will ultimately help the economy in the long term, he added, but reduce the size or scope of future booms.

"They've learned some lessons fairly early on that other generations haven't had to learn because we haven't seen market moves like this since the 1930s," Gault said.

These days, Berlinksi, a staffing manager at Veritude, a temporary staffing firm, is feeling insecure. His brokerage account has shed half of its value, falling to about $25,000. Job loss is on his mind. Last year, Berlinski's $50,000 home equity line was slashed to $25,000. He can't refinance because the Framingham home he bought for $295,000 in 2001 is now worth about $265,000. So projects like a new deck and driveway are on hold.

"It's all been so jolting," said Berlinski, who majored in business communications.

Chapman, too, is feeling the brunt of the housing bust. At the start of the decade, Chapman, who studied computer information systems, had saved more than $25,000 in retirement funds working in information technology. But he drained that account in 2003 to buy a small home in Milford for $250,000.

At the time, it seemed like a no-brainer. Chapman and his wife figured they could live there comfortably for five years, and, given the way housing prices were soaring around them, make a profit when they wanted to upgrade. In summer 2007, they fell in love with a new, larger home and signed the mortgage without selling their first house. They put the old home up for $265,000. And then they waited in agony, lowering the price for nine months while paying both mortgages, until someone was willing to buy it for $220,000 last April.

"It was hell," said Chapman, who has two children. "Paying two mortgages is not easy, and it drained whatever savings we had."

Today, his retirement fund is pretty barren; he hasn't made a contribution since starting a digital marketing firm in 2007. Any extra money these days is in a cash account, including flexible CDs that don't charge withdrawal fees, a choice spurred by the hard lessons the 35-year-old has learned.

"I know things could go drastically wrong," Chapman said, "so I want to make sure I have income to tap into."

Spoto, director of accounting at Bain & Co., is known affectionately by his Bentley pals as "the slow and steady one." He has held the fewest jobs since graduating - just two - and is the only one whose income has increased consistently over the past decade.

Spoto, who studied accounting in college, is meticulous about paying off his credit card every month, maxing out on contributions to his retirement plan, and investing bonuses into mutual funds. So it's particularly painful for Spoto, 35, to watch his portfolio, including college savings for his two children, drop 55 percent in recent months.

Last year, Spoto and his wife put most of their bonuses into a renovation for their home in Sharon that cost roughly $50,000. Now they are afraid the value of their investment has decreased. But Spoto has sought the silver lining: He says at least he can enjoy the addition with French doors and surround sound every day instead of seeing the money evaporate in his brokerage account.

These days, he is keeping most of his extra money in high-interest savings accounts and CDs, and has grown his emergency fund from five to eight months worth of expenses. Last month, Spoto took his first dip back into the market, investing $2,000. Over the past week, the investment had already lost nearly 5 percent of the value.

"We are taking baby steps back into the market. You think how much further can it go, but we said that two months ago, and it's gone down since," Spoto said. "We're cautiously back in, and I am definitely being more conservative."

If Spoto was the steady one, Maynard has seen the wildest swings of this bunch. By age 27, he was making $320,000 at a reseller of Internet technologies and data communications. His total net worth hit $750,000, and $500 sushi dinners with colleagues were not a rare event.

"It was a fictitious time," Maynard said. "If you didn't realize it was a fictitious time, you got burned."

And it was a hard fall for Maynard after the tech bubble burst. He has had nine jobs over the past decade, with three bouts of unemployment. He has watched his retirement funds drop from $130,000 to $60,000, and his investments in mutual funds fall from $110,000 to $40,000.

After he lost his job in 2006, Maynard, who studied business communications, returned to Bentley (which has since become Bentley University), feeling dejected and looking for guidance. He met with the school's vice president.

"I asked him what do people like me, who are used to working 24-hour days and being successful, do?" Maynard said, "And he said, 'You work for me.' And he hired me to be a fund-raising salesman in the development office."

Now, Maynard, 35, is happy to finally have some stability for his wife and two children. Still, he is trying to refinance his home to pay off a home equity line, and get $10,000 in cash to provide a cushion in case things go terribly wrong.

"This is our 1929," Maynard said, referring to the stock crash that marked the start of the Great Depression. "But I have all the confidence in the world that if we can survive this, it'll go up from here. But right now, I just want to keep on doing what I'm doing."
 
WHat's sad is that the older generation is fully committed to fooling us into investing into more idiotic bubbles, so they can retire nicely.
 
think the x generation will wind up being big time savers unlike the debt spending boomers.
 
think the x generation will wind up being big time savers unlike the debt spending boomers.


It's not really a choice when the prior generation has outsourced all the jobs, because their jew masters said it was the smart and non-racist thing to do.
 
I am not a debt spender.

Boomers were not the only people who made mistakes in this market my friend.

They're not the only who made mistakes, but they're most committed to fooling the younger generation into investing in the various wallstreet stupidities, because they have fewer working years and depend more on their portfolios.
 
http://www.breadwithcircus.com/


Explaining the Credit-Crisis
People don't seem to understand the conditions that have led to what is being called the "Credit-Crisis."
I've been doing a lot of research on this and I think that I have a pretty good handle on what really happened
here, so I'm going to try to explain it in a way that people unfamiliar with the disastrous practices of Wall
Street can easily understand. Its complicated, but bear with me.

First, banks and other agencies began issuing what have been called sub-prime loans. These were mostly mortgages
with really low interest rates. The loans were structured so that the people who took them out would have very
low payments for the first eighteen months or two years of the agreement, but much higher payments after that.
In many cases these loans were given to people who had no income, no job, no assets, and no ability to make
payments once the higher rates kicked in. However, because of the time-lag between the issuing of the loans, and
the day when payments would inevitably stop, firms realized that they had a brief window of opportunity to turn
temporarily valuable loan papers into billions of dollars.

Enter the Collateralized Debt Obligation. (CDO) Firms would carve the sub-prime loan debts that they owned into
pieces and repackage them as a product called a CDO. A CDO would have little slivers of all sorts of different loans
pieced together. A CDO might consist of 1% of Mary's second mortgage on a house in San Diego, 1% of Manuel's car-loan
in Atlanta, 1% of Mohammed's mortgage on a house in Kansas City, and 1% of the money that Acme Widgets Inc. borrowed
when they wanted expand their factory in Pittsburgh.

Even though the firms knew that many of their loans would and could never be repaid, because of the time-lag between
when the loans were good and when they went bust, the firms could temporarily list their CDO's as assets. Because
of this, it was in the interest of firms to issue as many dodgy loans as possible, in order to create as many
CDO's as possible, in order to hold as many assets as possible. Firms began buying and selling their CDO's and using
them as collateral when taking out loans of their own.

Enter the Credit-Default Swap. (CDS) Firms holding CDO's made deals with highly-rated firms. (Companies with good
credit ratings like the now nationalized AIG) The small firm would pay the bigger firm to co-sign with them on a very
large loan, often from a privately owned bank called the Federal Reserve. The small firms would list the income they
were making on their CDO's as collateral, and then make a payment to the large firm for their golden signature. Having
a large firm with a good credit rating as co-signer, dubious firms were able to borrow at astronomical rates, in some
cases at a ratio of up to 40 times of what the CDO's were (temporarily) worth.

Big firms saw windfall profits through their ability to sell their signature to smaller firms. Smaller firms borrowed
tens of billions of electronic dollars at low interest rates from the Federal Reserve Bank, among others. The stocks of
the firms involved in the scheme went through the roof as they were able to show massive amounts of money on their
balance sheets. A handful of CEO's made billions of dollars.

Now the chain reaction. The time-lag has caught up to us, and the higher payments on the sub-prime loans have kicked in.
People can't make these payments, so one of the slivers in a CDO package, then another and another becomes worthless.
The value of the CDO is compromised, but the firm who holds it had already borrowed an astronomical amount of money
against it. With nothing coming in from these now worthless CDO's, firms holding them no longer have enough income to
make payments on their debts. Since the smaller firm can't meet its debt obligations, the company that co-signed the
CDS deal with it has to pay. The larger firm, which has made many CDS deals finds themselves owning the debts of many
smaller firms, and they have to "write-down" their profits. Stock prices dive and some firms go bankrupt while others
are nationalized.

Now the final piece. These large firms are the ones who have been lending money to regular people, regular businesses,
and your bank. Perhaps your RRSP or 401K has put part of your life savings into some of these firms' stock. Now the
big firms can't make loans anymore, they have diverted all of their assests to making payments on the bad debts they
hold. It is all that many of these firms can do to avoid going bankrupt themselves. One fails, then another, and the
problem is compounded. There is very little money available now for people to get a loan to do anything at all, from
buying a house, to sending their kids to college or buying new infrastructure for their businesses.

The suggested solution to this problem has been for the US treasury to give troubled firms a "bailout", but that's not
even going to come close to solving the problem. With interest factored in, there are tens, or maybe even hundreds of
trillions of dollars worth of bad debts out there. The bailout, if it were passed, would do very little to the solve
the problem, though perhaps it would delay the inevitable collapse of the credit markets until after the US election.
Personally I think that the bailout is just a scheme for Bush to loot the treasury as a parting gift to the US...he did
this to the other companies he bankrupted earlier in his career. A better option than the bailout would be for the US
government to nationalize the Federal Reserve Bank
 
Desh's generation has systematically ruined and bankrupted America and now expects the younger generation to pay for their decadence and incompetence.
 
You have been had folks and now you are buying the bullshit of the people who HAD you and blaming it on the people.

They smile and count their money while you blame your older brother just like the told you to do.
 
Decadence like spending trillions on massive, useless taxbreaks for the rich.

Well certainly that contributed but the real reason is supporting a massive federal bureaucracy that we could not afford.

It should have been a choice. High taxes and tons of government services or low taxes and fewer services.

Instead they chose to create a shortsighted third option: Artificially low taxes with an unaffordably high level of government services.

Whether you think the proper way to address the shortfall was to raise taxes or cut services, any person with common sense should see that what was done was the worst of all options.
 
You have been had folks and now you are buying the bullshit of the people who HAD you and blaming it on the people.

They smile and count their money while you blame your older brother just like the told you to do.

There are lots of people who associate with the dem party who are counting fast and furious too, deshypants. My brother is to blame if he keeps advocating pro banker asshole policy. Anyone is who does so.
 
Seventy-six million American babies were born between 1946 and 1960.

Nationally, there were 217.8 million people age 18 and over as of 2004
 
Well certainly that contributed but the real reason is supporting a massive federal bureaucracy that we could not afford.

It should have been a choice. High taxes and tons of government services or low taxes and fewer services.

Instead they chose to create a shortsighted third option: Artificially low taxes with an unaffordably high level of government services.

Whether you think the proper way to address the shortfall was to raise taxes or cut services, any person with common sense should see that what was done was the worst of all options.

We should have not only eliminated the debt in the booms in the 80's and 90's, we should have ran surpluses. Reagan went into debt just because. There was no reason behind it, he just didn't want to do anything unpopular. Clinton "balanced" the budget for a couple of years but he didn't do enough, and it should've been a balanced the whole time. The economy was insanely good back then, and even though Clinton didn't go into deficits as bad as Reagan, he was, IMHO, more irresponsible simply for not balancing the budget throughout that entire massive stock boom.

Whatever your thoughts about going into debt now, there's simply no excuse for running a deficit when there's no recession going on (and of course, there's some who argue that there's no excuse for running a deficit ever).
 
These generational ponzi schemes called modern states rely on birth bubbles to determine whom to treat how, and when. Whether to allow them to thrive, and build a middle class, pretend to care so they fight your wars, or to send their jobs overseas so household formation comes to an end, and the species dies off. It helps to gain the allegiance of the old generation, and get them to help you sell their sons and daughters down the toilet.

Abraham, will you kill isaac?
 
Back
Top