Sunday, June 27, 2021

Inflation Can Ruin Your Bank and Investment Accounts

I often have a conversation with someone about safety vs. the return on bank accounts and investments. Regardless of your returns, inflation will eat away at these, either reducing your return, or reducing the balance of your investments. 

Currently, as I write this, inflation is about 5% or 6%, depending on what source you read. Some say this is a transitory type inflation, and as soon as supply-demand imbalances work themselves out, inflation will go down to "normal," or 2% or less.

Others say this inflation will last longer. 

Regardless of what the outcome will be -- and no one can accurately predict that -- you need to be aware of what inflation can do to cash or investments. Consider that most quality bond funds pay about 2-3%, high yield bond funds are around 5-6%, and other investments, such as AT%T, will pay a 7% dividend (as least for now). And add in that most banks offer less than 1% -- as low as .05% -- interest, you need to pay attention. 

This chart will show you why. It should get your attention. Plan accordingly.

Saturday, June 26, 2021

Weekly Events: The Big Double-Cross; Capitalism Myths; How Many Genders Are There?

The Big Double-Cross

President Joe Biden
Supposedly, a bi-partisan group of Democrat and Republican Senators reached an agreement with President Biden on a $1.2 trillion "infrastructure" package. But an hour later, Biden changed the conditions of the agreement, saying he would not sign the bill, if passed, unless he also received a bill that would include everything else he wanted, some $3 trillion in other "infrastructure" programs. 

Republican senators are now threatening to sink a the compromise after President Joe Biden said that its adoption was conditioned on the passage of a complementary bill containing top Democratic priorities.

Multiple senators who took part in bipartisan negotiations during the bill’s creation have already said that they may now withhold their support, jeopardizing its passage given the 60 votes necessary for it to overcome a potential filibuster.

“No deal by extortion!” South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said Friday. “It was never suggested to me during these negotiations that President Biden was holding hostage the bipartisan infrastructure proposal unless a liberal reconciliation package was also passed.” Though 11 Republicans initially signed on to the bipartisan package when it was agreed upon Thursday, opposition from Graham and Moran would mean that only nine Republicans support it, putting it below the Senate’s 60 vote threshold if every other Republican votes against it.

Biden drew his red line during a press conference Thursday afternoon, echoing statements made by multiple progressive lawmakers and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

“If this is the only thing that comes to me, I’m not signing it,” Biden said. “It’s in tandem.”

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell also panned Biden’s ultimatum Thursday on the Senate floor.

“Less than two hours after publicly commending our colleagues and actually endorsing the bipartisan agreement, the president took the extraordinary step of threatening to veto it,” McConnell said. “It was a tale of two press conferences.”

Capitalism Myths, by John Stossel

“No one ever makes a billion dollars,” complains Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. “You take a billion dollars.” In other words, capitalists get rich by taking money from others.

That’s nonsense. People believe that myth if they think that when one person wins, someone else must lose. It’s natural to believe that if you think there is a finite amount of money in the world. But there isn’t.

Free markets increase total wealth. Competition encourages entrepreneurs to find new ways to release more value from both people and resources.

Because capitalism is voluntary and consumers have choices, the only way capitalists can get rich is to offer us something that we believe is better than we had before.

That creates new wealth.

Steve Jobs became a billionaire. But by creating Apple, he gave us more: millions of jobs and billions of dollars added to our economy.

Research shows that entrepreneurs only keep 2.2% of the additional wealth they generate. “In other words, the rest of us captured almost 98% of the benefits,” says economist Dan Mitchell of the Center for Freedom and Prosperity.

“I hope that we get 100 new super billionaires,” he adds, “Because that means 100 new people have figured out ways to make the rest of our lives better off.”

But former Labor Secretary Robert Reich says we should “abolish billionaires.” He wants some form of wealth tax to hold their wealth down. “Entrepreneurs like Jeff Bezos would be just as motivated by $100 million or even $50 million,” Reich claims.

But Mitchell points out that if their income is limited, “Maybe they just take it easy … retire … sail a yacht around the world … consuming instead of saving and producing.”

I want them saving and producing! Billionaires have shown that they’re good at cutting prices or improving products or both.

As Mitchell puts it, “I’m not giving Jeff Bezos any money unless he’s selling me something that I value more than that money.”

Even if they don’t — even if they run out of ideas — their wealth is useful.

One reader called me “a complete moron” for saying that. He argues that “more money in the richest hands means money sitting in the bank doing nothing.”

But that’s an ignorant view of banks. Because banks loan that money out, they enable other people to buy homes, start new businesses and get educated.

Still, I hear that “the rich are getting richer, while the poor get poorer!”

That’s Myth No. 2. Yes, the rich got lots richer, but the poor and middle class got richer, too.

“The economic pie grows,” says Mitchell. “We are much richer than our grandparents, and our grandparents were much richer than their grandparents.”

For thousands of years, the world had almost no wealth creation. Only when some countries tried capitalism did GDP grow.

Capitalists helped everyone, including the poor.

Crazy of the Week: How Many Genders Are There? 

Education Secretary Miguel Cardona refused to answer, when questioned in a Congressional Hearing. 

"We emphatically support all students taking advantage of all opportunities in our schools, including athletics, the arts, and that includes transgender students," Education Secretary Miguel Cardona told the House Education and Labor Committee on Thursday.

"So that's something that we stand firm with, and we recognize that discrimination against any student is unacceptable, and we stand strong there."

Rep. Mary Miller, an Illinois Republican, on Thursday challenged Cardona on the administration's new guidelines for protecting the rights of transgender students -- possibly at the expense of other students' rights.

"I won't be answering your question," Cardona told Miller, when she asked him how many genders there are.

Rep. Miller pointed to a new resource for students and families on "Confronting Anti-LGBTQI+ Harassment in Schools," which the Education Department released on Wednesday.

"This document gives an example of harassment, which is a teacher telling students that there are only two genders -- boys and girls. Before we start penalizing teachers for stating a genetic and biological fact about genders, can you please clarify for the committee how many genders there are?" Miller asked Cardona.

"So, I know what you're asking, but I'm going to get to the root of what you're asking," Cardona said. "I feel very strongly that as educators, we are -- it's our responsibility to protect all students."

Miller rephrased the question: "You used as an example of harassment a teacher who stated there are only two genders, male and female. That's a genetic and biologic fact. That is an example, under your leadership, that you are putting out to people. How many genders are there?" Miller asked again.

Cardona responded with a question of his own: "How would you respond to a student who is nonbinary in your classroom?" he asked.

"But how many genders, will you please state--" Miller started to say.

"I won't be answering your question," Cardona snapped. "You can continue your line of questioning."

Entire story here.

Friday, June 25, 2021

Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS): What You Should Know

Inflation continues to be a concern these days, and many investors are looking for investments that can keep pace with, or hopefully beat, the rate of inflation. As a result, Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities, or TIPS, have become a popular investment option.

But investing in TIPS isn't always straightforward. They have many unique characteristics that can make the investing experience a bit confusing. Here are answers to some of the most frequently asked questions about the TIPS market:

1. What are Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities?

Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities, or TIPS, are a type of U.S. Treasury security whose principal value is indexed to the rate of inflation. When inflation rises, the TIPS’ principal value is adjusted up. If there’s deflation, then the principal value is adjusted lower. Like traditional Treasuries, TIPS are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government.

Although there are many measures of inflation, TIPS are referenced to one specific index: the Consumer Price Index, or CPI, a measure of the average change over time in the prices paid by urban consumers for a market basket of consumer goods and services, published monthly by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

2. Will TIPS coupon payments fluctuate with the level of inflation, as well?

Yes. Just like traditional Treasuries, TIPS have fixed coupon rates and make semiannual interest payments. While the coupon rates are fixed, the actual coupon payments can fluctuate based on the underlying principal value. The table below provides a hypothetical look at a TIPS principal value and coupon payment based on a constant 2% rise in inflation.

How TIPS principal values and coupon payments can adjust to inflation.

Source: Schwab Center for Financial Research. The annual coupon payment equals the fixed coupon rate multiplied the adjusted principal value. Note that the initial TIPS principal value is $1,000 and TIPS coupon payments are actually paid on a semiannual basis, not an annual basis like this example illustrates. Example is hypothetical, for illustrative purposes only.

3. What sort of yields do TIPS offer today?

Most TIPS yields are negative today. While that might surprise many investors, consider the yields of nominal (non-inflation-protected) Treasuries. The 10-year Treasury yield is still positive at 1.5%, but after the rate of inflation is accounted for, that inflation-adjusted yield is below zero, as well.

All TIPS yields are below zero

Source: Bloomberg, as of 6/17/2021. US Treasury Inflation Indexed Curve (YCGT0169). Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

4. TIPS yields are negative? Doesn’t that mean investors would lose money?

Not necessarily, because nominal returns can still be positive. A nominal return doesn’t account for the effects of inflation, while a “real” total return incorporates the effect of inflation.

By investing in an individual TIPS with a negative “real” yield and holding that TIPS to maturity, an investor would be locking in a loss relative to inflation. In this case, TIPS can help the investor keep pace with inflation, but not beat inflation.

Nominal total returns can still be positive, however. For example, let’s assume a 10-year TIPS has a real yield of negative 0.9%. If inflation averaged just 1% per year, the nominal total return on this TIPS would still be positive, as the annual inflation adjustment would offset that annualized negative real yield. The higher inflation goes, the higher the nominal total return of a TIPS can go; the same can’t be said for the total return of a traditional Treasury.
5. How can I compare TIPS to traditional Treasuries?

Breakeven rates. A breakeven rate is the difference between the yield of a TIPS and the yield of a traditional Treasury of a comparable maturity. That difference is what inflation would need to average over the life of the TIPS for it to outperform the traditional Treasury.

For example, a 10-year TIPS offers a yield of roughly negative 0.8% today, compared with a 1.5% yield for a traditional 10-year Treasury. That difference is 2.3% (note that the TIPS yield is negative). If the CPI were to average more than 2.3% per year for the next 10 years, then that TIPS would provide a higher total return than the traditional Treasury. If inflation averaged less than 2.3%, then the traditional Treasury would outperform the TIPS.

When evaluating TIPS, the breakeven rate matters just as much as your outlook for inflation. Breakevens have fallen from their recent highs but are still elevated compared to history—the average 10-year breakeven rate since inception is exactly 2%.

10-year breakeven rates are near their 10-year highs

Source: Bloomberg, using monthly data as of 6/17/2021. US Breakeven 10 Year (USGGBE10 Index). Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

6. Would an investor beat inflation with TIPS?

Not if the investor purchased individual TIPS with negative yields and held them to maturity. For investors who purchase individual TIPS, the negative yields mean that they are essentially locking in that negative yield regardless of how high (or low) inflation goes. Even if inflation surges, the TIPS principal value is simply rising by the same rate as inflation, but not enough to offset the premium the investor paid (that premium that resulted in a negative yield.)

It also depends on the time horizon. With negative yields, it’s still possible for returns to beat inflation over the short run. Whether one holds individual TIPS or invests using a mutual fund or exchange-traded fund (ETF), total returns over short investing horizons can beat inflation. Although past performance is no guarantee of future results, note that in the 12 months ending May 31, 2021, the Bloomberg Barclays U.S. TIPS Index delivered a total return of 7.1%, even though the starting yield was negative.

7. If inflation rises sharply, will TIPS perform well over the short term?

Not necessarily—TIPS can offer inflation protection over the long run, but over the short run they can still underperform if yields rise. TIPS prices can fluctuate in the secondary market, and their prices and yields move in opposite directions. If TIPS yields rise due to a rise in inflation, their prices would fall.

In other words, TIPS can perform poorly over short periods of time even if inflation is surging, because the price might fall more than the principal is adjusted upward.

For that reason, we stop short of calling TIPS a good inflation “hedge,” especially over the short run. Over the long run, however, TIPS are one of the most straightforward ways to protect against inflation.
8. What’s the best way to invest in TIPS?

You can invest in TIPS either by holding individual bonds, or through a mutual fund or ETF. There are pros and cons to each approach. By holding individual bonds, you can plan to hold to maturity, meaning any short-term price fluctuations might not matter. Individual TIPS also can be good planning tools. While the amount at maturity isn’t totally known in advance, given the principal adjustments, investors can expect a return of at least the original $1,000 principal plus or minus the principal adjustment.

With a mutual fund or ETF you can get more diversification than might be achieved by buying individual TIPS yourself, and usually at a low cost depending on the fund. You also get the benefit of professional management, and potentially better pricing on the bonds than you might get by investing in individual bonds yourself. Mutual funds and ETFs don’t usually have a maturity date, so their prices or net asset values (NAV) will fluctuate, and there’s no certainty about what that price or NAV will be at a point in the future. When using mutual funds or ETFs to invest in TIPS, the fund’s yield can be distorted due to short-term fluctuations in the CPI. Very high yields that don’t match the yield of the underlying securities are likely attributable to a short-term rise in the rate of inflation and might not be repeated.
What to do now

TIPS are worth considering today, especially for those investors worried about inflation. However, in periods when inflation expectations fall, TIPS may underperform other fixed income investments.

Despite their current negative yields, TIPS are still one of the most straightforward ways to protect against inflation over the long run. For investors who currently have an allocation to high-quality, highly rated bond investments like Treasuries, but no exposure to TIPS, it makes sense to consider shifting some of that exposure to TIPS to help protect against long-term or unexpected surges in inflation.

U.S. Coportate Tax Rate About Average Among OECD


Wednesday, June 16, 2021

Fed stands pat, but raises inflation expectations

From Schwab

The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) concluded its two-day monetary policy meeting today, opting to leave its stance and interest rates unchanged, as was widely anticipated, and there was also no change to its asset purchases. However, the Committee sharply raised its expectations for inflation this year and pulled forward the timeframe of when it could begin to raise interest rates, surprising the markets.

In its statement, the Committee said, "Progress on vaccinations has reduced the spread of COVID-19 in the United States. Amid this progress and strong policy support, indicators of economic activity and employment have strengthened." On inflation, it noted that prices have risen, but it still deems it as "transitory," while it also continued to reiterate its intentions to aim for an average of two percent over time, and that longer‑term inflation expectations remain well anchored at two percent. However, in the updated economic projections provided with its statement, it upped its projection for PCE inflation to 3.4%, a full percentage point from its March estimate, and the core PCE, which excludes food and energy, to 3.0% from the previous meeting's 2.2% forecast. As well, the Committee increased its estimate for real GDP to 7.0%, a one-half percentage point above March's reading. As such, the Fed's "dots plot" showed that members saw a liftoff of rates could come as soon as 2023, whereas it saw no increases until at least 2024 at its last meeting.

In his scheduled press conference following the statement, Chairman Jerome Powell said that the effects of bottlenecks on inflation have been larger than anticipated, and that inflation could turn out to be higher and more persistent than previously thought. As such, Powell said that the Committee is prepared to adjust policy if pricing pressures move too high, but any needed change to its policy would remain accommodative. Get more in-depth analysis on the Fed's decision from Schwab's Liz Ann Sonders in here commentary later this afternoon on our Market Insights page.

Housing starts for May rose 3.6% month-over-month (m/m) to an annual pace of 1,572,000 units, below the Bloomberg consensus forecast of 1,630,000 units, and compared to April's downwardly-revised pace of 1,517,000 units. Building permits, one of the leading indicators tracked by the Conference Board as it is a gauge of future construction, fell 3.0% m/m at an annual rate of 1,681,000, south of expectations calling for 1,730,000 units, and compared to the negatively-revised 1,733,000 unit pace in April.

The Import Price Index increased 1.1% m/m for May, compared to expectations calling for a match of April's upwardly-revised 0.8% increase. Versus last year, prices were up by 11.3%, compared to forecasts of a 10.9% increase and April's upwardly-adjusted 10.8% gain.

The MBA Mortgage Application Index rose by 4.2% last week, following the prior week's 3.1% decrease. The increase came as the Refinance Index gained 5.5% and the Purchase Index was 1.6% higher. The average 30-year mortgage rate declined 4 basis points (bps) to 3.11%.

Job Openings Hit New Records in April


Saturday, June 12, 2021

Market Snapshot from Schwab Investing

Liz Ann Sonders shares her perspective on the U.S. stock market and economy in this monthly Market Snapshot video.

Subscribe to the Charles Schwab channel:

Wednesday, June 9, 2021

JOLTS, a Sleepy Economic Indicator, Jolts Awake

By Kelly Evans,

The Exchange, CNBC

Well, JOLTS certainly lived up to its name yesterday. This is typically one of the sleepiest economic indicators, despite its acronym (for the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey). It comes out way after the fact--yesterday's release was data for the ancient month of April--and it's not usually a headline-grabber.

Until now. My eyes certainly bulged when I saw the number. Nine-point-two million job openings?! I've never seen it that high before. It jumped by a million openings in just a month. This is truly bizarre. Not in the sense that I don't believe it--but in that the data are confirming something really, really different is going on out there.

Why so many job openings? It's peculiar to reflect upon. In the 2001-2007 expansion, there were never more than about five million in any given month. By 2010, after the great recession, openings had collapsed to fewer than three million and it took more than five years for them to return to their pre-crisis highs.

Since 2015, openings have been on a steady climb higher. From five million to six million to seven million to eight million by 2019--meaning the recent spike isn't just a post-pandemic phenomenon. It's an acceleration of the previous trend. So as I think it over, the pandemic seems to have sharply sped up the societal change that was gradually happening--the Great American Reset.

What change? Well, we all know the quality of internet video and video conferencing had been gradually increasing over the years. But suddenly, the pandemic showed that it could replace previous systems for how we live, and school, and work. No one wants to waste away all day in a corporate office. That's doubly true when both parents are working, and they have children--i.e., the millennials now. The share of both parents working with children hit 64% in 2019, up from 60% in 2015. The last time it was that high, coincidentally, was in 1999 and 2000--just before the dotcom crash.

So you're seeing this massive reshuffling now, as people who can have flexibility restructure--and improve--their lifestyles around it. For some, that means cashing in their homes, moving to lower-cost areas, and retiring early, as Glenn Kelman observed. For younger couples, that might mean one spouse can now permanently work from home--or even drop out of the labor force altogether, if it's paired with moving somewhere cheaper.

And it might not even be a bad thing for the economy in the long run. In fact, it's probably necessary, especially if better family balance helps stem the falling fertility rate. We've already basically returned the economy to its pre-pandemic size even with millions of workers on the sidelines. So while the Fed has been focused on getting labor force participation back up, lower participation in the years ahead based on family preference would be a totally different, much healthier thing.

That said, if companies still can't find workers once immigration fully normalizes and other Covid measures expire, it will slow down the economy. That's how you get "stagflation," which we're nowhere near right now with growth still booming. But bottom line, workers for a whole variety of reasons are saying to their old employers pay up, or I'll find something different to do. The quits rate also hit a new high in April and is 40% above its pre-pandemic average. YOLO, baby!

After the Great Recession, there were nearly seven unemployed workers for every single job opening in America. Five years after the downturn ended, there were still four unemployed workers for every opening. Today, per Goldman, there are more job openings than unemployed workers--less than a year after the pandemic recession. This is a very different environment.

And sure enough, like a cocooned caterpillar, there was actually much growth and change happening to the U.S. workforce while we were all forced inside to ponder our lives and experiment with new technology during the pandemic. We are reemerging as a much different, less constrained society.

New Leak of Taxpayer Info Is (More) Evidence of IRS Corruption

by Dan Mitchell

International Liberty

I sometimes try to go easy on the IRS. After all, our wretched tax system is largely the fault of politicians, who have spent the past 108 years creating a punitive and corrupt set of tax laws.

There is plenty of IRS behavior to criticize. Most notably, the tax agency allowed itself to be weaponized by the Obama White House, using its power to persecute and harass organizations associated with the "Tea Party."

That grotesque abuse of power largely was designed to weaken opposition to Obama's statist agenda and make it easier for him to win re-election.

Now there's a new IRS scandal. In hopes of advancing President Biden's class-warfare agenda, the bureaucrats have leaked confidential taxpayer information to ProPublica, a left-wing website.
ProPublica has obtained a vast trove of Internal Revenue Service data on the tax returns of thousands of the nation’s wealthiest people, covering more than 15 years. ...ProPublica undertook an analysis that has never been done before. We compared how much in taxes the 25 richest Americans paid each year to how much Forbes estimated their wealth grew in that same time period. We’re going to call this their true tax rate. ...those 25 people saw their worth rise a collective $401 billion from 2014 to 2018. They paid a total of $13.6 billion in federal income taxes in those five years, the IRS data shows. That’s a staggering sum, but it amounts to a true tax rate of only 3.4%.
Since I'm a policy wonk, I'll first point out that ProPublica created a make-believe number. We (thankfully) don't tax wealth in the United States.

So Elon Musk's income is completely unrelated to what happened to the value of his Tesla shares. The same is true for Jeff Bezos' income and the value of his Amazon stock.*

And the same thing is true for the rest of us. If our IRA or 401(k) rises in value, that doesn't mean our taxable income has increased. If our home becomes more valuable, that also doesn't count as taxable income.

The Wall Street Journal opined on this topic today and made a similar point.
There is no evidence of illegality in the ProPublica story. ...ProPublica knows this, so its story tries to invent a scandal by calculating what it calls the “true tax rate” these fellows are paying. This is a phony construct that exists nowhere in the law and compares how much the “wealth” of these individuals increased from 2014 to 2018 compared to how much income tax they paid. ...what Americans pay is a tax on income, not wealth.
Some journalists don't understand this distinction between income and wealth.

Or perhaps they do understand, but pretend otherwise because they see their role as being handmaidens of the Biden Administration.

Consider these excerpts from a column by Binyamin Appelbaum of the New York Times.
Jeff Bezos...added an estimated $99 billion in wealth between 2014 and 2018 but reported only $4.22 billion in taxable income during that period. Warren Buffett, who amassed $24.3 billion in new wealth over those years, reported $125 million in taxable income. ...some of the wealthiest people in the United States essentially live under a different system of income taxation from the rest of us.
Mr. Appelbaum is wrong. The rich have a lot more assets than the rest of us, but they operate under the same rules.

If I have an asset that increases in value, that doesn't count as taxable income. The same is true if Bill Gates has an asset that increases in value.

Now that we've addressed the policy mistakes, let's turn our attention to the scandal of IRS misbehavior.

The WSJ's editorial addresses the agency's grotesque actions.
Less than half a year into the Biden Presidency, the Internal Revenue Service is already at the center of an abuse-of-power scandal. ...ProPublica, a website whose journalism promotes progressive causes, published information from what it said are 15 years of the tax returns of Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffett and other rich Americans. ...The story arrives amid the Biden Administration’s effort to pass the largest tax increase as a share of the economy since 1968. ...The timing here is no coincidence, comrade. ...someone leaked confidential IRS information about individuals to serve a political agenda. This is the same tax agency that pursued a vendetta against conservative nonprofit groups during the Obama Administration. Remember Lois Lerner? This is also the same IRS that Democrats now want to infuse with $80 billion more... As part of this effort, Mr. Biden wants the IRS to collect “gross inflows and outflows on all business and personal accounts from financial institutions.” Why? So the information can be leaked to ProPublica? ...Congress should also not trust the IRS with any more power and money than it already has.
And Charles Cooke of National Review also weighs in on the implications of a weaponized and partisan IRS.
We cannot trust the IRS. “Oh, who cares?” you might ask. “The victims are billionaires!” And indeed, they are. But I care. For a start, they’re American citizens, and they’re entitled to the same rights — and protected by the same laws — as everyone else. ...Besides, even if one wants to be entirely amoral about it, one should consider that if their information can be spilled onto the Internet, anyone’s can. ...A government that is this reckless or sinister with the information of men who are lawyered to the eyeballs is unlikely to worry too much about being reckless or sinister with your information. ...The IRS wields an extraordinary amount of power, and there will always be somebody somewhere who thinks that it should be used to advance their favorite political cause. Our refusal to indulge their calls is one of the many things that prevents us from descending into the caprice and chaos of your average banana republic. ...Does that bother you? It should.
What's especially disgusting is that the Biden Administration wants to reward IRS corruption with giant budget increases, bolstered by utterly fraudulent numbers.

Needless to say, that would be a terrible idea (sadly, Republicans in the past have been sympathetic to expanding the size of the tax bureaucracy).

*Financial assets such as stocks generally increase in value because of an expectation of bigger streams of income in the future (such as dividends). Those income streams are taxed (often multiple times) when (and if) they actually materialize.

Don't Panic! The World is a Better Place than You Thought

A very well-done and interesting video. For more on this topic, visit Gapminder Foundation

Top Five Consumer Cyber Security FAQs

By Equifax Business, technology, environmental and economic changes are a part of life, and they are coming faster all the time. All of thes...