We know the United States is aging. Not a day goes by that we don’t hear about the Baby Boomers and their march towards retirement and what it means for the American economy. We also nervously await what will happen when all of them are collecting Social Security and Medicare payments through a system that probably won’t be able to support them all.

But the Americans don’t have it nearly as bad as what will happen in Asia- specifically in Japan and China.

Japan has some of the longest life spans in the world, with its average female lifespan over 80. But they have coupled that statistic with one of the lowest birth rates. Japanese women, frankly, aren’t having enough kids. Combined with a nearly 0% immigration rate, and Japan has both a labor and a financial shortage looming. From the Inter Press Service News Agency:

Statistics estimate that Japan’s aging population will demand an increase of 1.5 million home caregivers by 2010, a requirement that cannot be met by its current population growth of 1.3 births per woman.

What are they going to do then? They’ll have to let in some foreign workers. In 2002, Japan signed a Free Trade Act with Singapore. They are close to formalizing similar agreements with Thailand and the Philippines.

Concessions were made — mainly Japan accepting a limited number of Filipino and Thai workers in exchange for scrapping tariffs on Japan’s machinery exports to those countries.

Things will be much worse in China. Imagine 400 million people needing caregivers, assisted living situations, hospitals, medicines and, simply, care? From China Daily:

China faces the problem of aging population more than any other country, with the number of people above 60 expected to cross 400 million by 2045, political advisors warned over the weekend.

China is “already the only country with an aging population of more than 100 million, and their number is growing even faster”, said Zheng Silin, deputy director of the Subcommittee of Population, Resources and Environment of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) National Committee.

By the end of 2005, there were 144 million people aged 60 and above, or 11 per cent of the total population. This figure is likely to triple in less than 40 years, a process that could take hundreds of years in many other countries.

Retirees in the countryside get little to no financial help from the government. It’s not much better in the cities.

Last year, 46 million senior citizens received pensions worth more than 500 billion yuan ($62.7 billion).

The one child policy has been devastating to the normal familial caregiving situation, especially in the rural areas.

Last year, the country launched a nationwide pension and subsidy scheme for families with one child or two daughters in rural areas because they are not as “lucky” as those with sons to rely on when they get old.

Each of the 1.8 million rural couples received 1,200 yuan ($152) last year. Farmers welcomed the policy because the money often was a relief in areas where people have little income, except for the crops they grow.

Each child now has to take care of, possibly, four aging parents (two each of his own parents plus two each of his spouse’s.) In the United States, conversely, multiple children are usually available to care for aging parents.

The Chinese retirement age is set low right now, specifically to allow room for the next generation to find employment. From the New York Times:

Under the current two-tiered system, the retirement age for blue-collar urban workers is 50 for women and 55 for men, while for higher-grade professionals and government workers it is 55 for women and 60 for men. Obviously, raising the retirement ages would ease a substantial amount of pressure on the pension system. But there are no plans to do so, and raising the retirement ages would present another set of problems for the government, experts here say.

Last year, for example, 4.13 million young Chinese graduated from universities, and fully 30 percent of them are still unemployed. Unemployment is high among those who are not university graduates, as well. Prolonging employment for older workers would make this predicament worse, possibly with volatile consequences.

How do you avoid social unrest among the young, but keep the aging adult population still engaged and working as long as possible to avoid the burden on the state? The outcome is not promising. From the New York Times:

€œI think that most people have not realized how tough the situation will become,€ said Li Shaoguang, director of the Institute of Social Security at the School of Public Administration at Renmin University of China, in Beijing. €œWe€™re already aware that the percentage of old people in our population is large and is growing fast, so in order to pool more people in the system to pay for current retirees, the government is trying to include more migrant workers in the system. This could alleviate pressures now, but it also means that you will have larger pressures to face when the migrant workers grow old.€

By some estimates, at least half a billion mostly rural Chinese are not covered by the state€™s fragmentary social security system at all.

I can barely think that high. Half a billion don’t have any protection at all? That is more than the population of the United States.

China, already struggling in its interior, has a long way to go before their “miracle” is really a miracle for all its citizens.

Six or seven years ago, the Oakland Athletics used to have 50 cent hotdog day and $2 ticket day. They were usually on day games in the middle of the week when they knew they would only be selling about 5,000 tickets.

As the A’s started winning, those freebies and cheap ticket deals went away. Although, as recently as three years ago you could still get a ticket in the upper deck for only $8.

This week, the Chicago Blackhawks, one of the oldest sports franchises in the country and one of the original NHL teams, took the freebies one step further. They began to clandestinely offer free tickets on ticketmaster.

Cold Steel On Ice- it’s not.

Free tickets are not new to the Blackhawks this season. Several months ago they were offering tickets only 15 rows from the glass to season ticket holders for free. But this is a whole other level. This is, supposedly, thousands of free tickets available for the $6 ticketmaster fee.

Shhhh!

No one is supposed to know. They have NOT advertised it. Yet, not surprisingly, some upscale downtown workers started to hear about the “deal” and let their friends in office buildings know who then e-mailed their friends and their friends e-mailed those in Lakeview bars and, well, you get the story.

You have to hand it to the Blackhawk marketing department. They wanted to make it seem like the free tickets were a “deal” or a “mistake”, without it being “known” that they were. It’s like the $11 airline tickets that occasionally show up on airline websites. But this was for real. They had to keep it quiet though. Because, after all, it’s not like they want any Tom, Dick or Harry getting the tickets.

Noooo…

They want beer drinking, hot dog eating 20 and 30-somethings.

Because, frankly, the empty seats are doing nothing for the team’s revenues. At least if you have some people in the seats they are buying something at the stadium. Something is better than nothing.

But you don’t want to appear desperate. After all, there are several thousand paying ticket holders and you don’t want to upset them.

Still, this is not a good sign for a franchise that used to pack them in 15 years ago. I remember going to games that were standing room only. Remember the Blue Line magazine? You could buy it out in front of the stadium before games for $1. It was written by Blackhawk fans and was not “authorized” by team management- making it all the more juicy. Blackhawk management seethed at the notion that someone else was making money off the team (when it was, frankly, a sign of love by diehard fans.)

The team and the Blue Line engaged in litigation against each other in 1995 with allegations that the Blackhawks had the publisher of the Blue Line thrown into jail for selling the magazine outside of the old Chicago Stadium. Of course, us young fans bought the Blue Line. Religiously.

It’s been a long time since the Blue Line was published.

Sad.

Because who cares now? Where are the standing room only crowds? Where are the hotdog throwing crazies? Where is the organist playing the Rocky Theme song whenever there is, um, action on the ice?

IS there action on the ice?

The Blackhawks have lost their last six games and are mired in the cellar of the league.

The demise of a great franchise.

Go to ticketmaster. Get your free tickets for Friday’s game versus Columbus. Drink beer.

It’s the least you can do.

I have an extended cable package with no movie channels. I know that the local 24 hour weather channel is on channel 101. I think I get more channels higher than 101, but I don’t really know. Who really clicks on channel 225 to see if they get it?

Apparently, not many people. Americans are only watching, on average, about 15 channels. From a recent Nielsen study:

The number of television channels that the average U.S. home receives has now reached a record high of 104.2 TV channels. This and other television trends were released in a report from Nielsen that highlights population, television ownership and advertising trends in the United States.

In 2006, the average US home received 104.2 channels increase of almost eight channels since 2005 and a record level.

As the number of channels available to a household increases, so does the number of channels tuned. In 2006, the average household tuned to 15.7, or 15.1% of the 104.2 channels available for at least 10 minutes per week.

General dramas still dominate the broadcast networks program lineups, comprising 50% (67 of 134) of the primetime programs, an increase of four programs since last year.

47% of homes received 100+ channels.

Remember back in the simpler days, say, 1995? Average number of channels was 41. Average number watched was 10.

So, things haven’t changed all that much in terms of what people are watching, despite having more choice.

The question then becomes- when will someone with half a brain start offering cable plans that allow you to simply pick the channels you want (without getting everything)? If you only really watch the 15 channels consistenly, you can then purchase simply those channels you which to view.

But maybe Americans are too addicted to “choice.” We like having 100 channels to choose from even if we don’t ever watch 85+ of them.

Which leads us to wonder what will happen when companies like Apple expand to the television (as is proposed in an AppleTV format soon to come.) Years ago, Bill Gates believed the computer would soon be on the tv- but so far that hasn’t really happened.

Could there be such a thing as too much choice?

Morningstar has given him the mutual fund industry’s equivalent of an Oscar: a lifetime achievement award.

He was named Fund Manager of the Year in 2001.

And if you had invested your money with him along the way, you’d be rich indeed. According to the New York Society of Security Analysts:

The annualized net return of Eveillard€™s flagship vehicle, the First Eagle Global Fund, was 15.5% as of December 31, 2004€”that is, a $100,000 investment made at fund inception on January 1, 1979, would have been worth over $4.2 million on December 31, 2004.

You probably have never heard of him but you should have. Jean-Marie Eveillard is a legendary value investor, ranking up there with Warren Buffett. His style of investing is a mixture of the great value investors:

Eveillard€™s style of value investing, which Kehoe described as a mix of Benjamin Graham€™s €œcheap-stock€ approach and Warren Buffet€™s practice of buying franchise business at reasonable prices. Eveillard likened value investing to a large tent that accommodates many different people: At one end there are the value followers of Benjamin Graham, in the middle are the €œnew value€ followers of Warren Buffet, and at the far end are the €œnew new€ value investors. Over the course of his career Eveillard has floated between the Graham and the Buffet approaches. Running the First Eagle Global Fund between 1979 and 1986, he found the Graham approach to be less time-consuming. Even today First Eagle owns quite a few Graham stocks, particularly in Japan where these stocks became available after a 13-year bear market. In these instances, net cash was in excess of market cap, and First Eagle paid very little for the businesses. The risk associated with this type of investing is that cash may disappear over time if the company experiences a string of losses.

€œBecause we€™re on the value side we pay little attention to sell-side research€”not only in the U.S. but also throughout the world€”because it doesn€™t have the same time horizon as we do,€ remarked Eveillard. €œI€™ve always looked at our in-house analytical style as the hub of our operation. We€™ve moved more toward the Buffet approach, though not without trepidation, because we€™re not as smart as Buffet.€ The Buffet approach is potentially more rewarding than the Graham approach, but also carries more risk in that it is based on qualitative judgments that can be flawed. €œYou get to the point where the margin of safety may no longer be there because you€™re expecting to make some or most of your money not on the narrowing of the discount, not on the price of the stock being much lower than the intrinsic value, but on the idea that the odds seem to be very good that the business will continue to create value in the future.€

Eveillard retired two years ago to, presumably, sip pina coladas with Alan Greenspan on a beach in the South of France.

Alas, as with Chairman Greenspan, things seem a tad too busy to sit around and get a tan.

Eveillard’s hand picked successor at the First Eagle Funds, 45 year old Charles de Vaulx, abrupty resigned with no explanation. He was unavailable for comment. Vaulx had been a protege of Eveillard for years and followed the same value investing strategy as his mentor. The funds had been performing well under Vaulx. From CBSMarketwatch:

First Eagle Global Fund is the top performer among world allocation funds in the past decade, according to Morningstar. But it slipped last year after de Vaulx let cash build.

The fund still did pretty well, finishing well in the top half of its category in 2006,” said Gregg Wolper, a Morningstar analyst. “But the fund would’ve done better if it had been invested more in stocks.”

Wolper says he’s surprised that de Vaulx quit. “The biggest fund, First Eagle Global, has continued to outperform its peers, both in the short-term and long-term,” he said.

So now Eveillard has been pushed out of retirement by management. He has returned out of a sense of loyalty and also because he doesn’t want to see his legacy go to shambles just because his former protege decided to high-tail it out of there. From CBSMarketwatch:

I came back because [Arnhold and S. Bleichroeder Chairman] John Arnhold asked me for help,” Eveillard said in a telephone interview from his New York headquarters. “I was in Europe and got a call out of the blue. I was very content and happy in retirement.”

He added: “This is my baby, so to speak. I had been running the old fund that goes by the name of First Eagle Global for 26 years. So I felt responsible since there appears to be a need for me to help.”

What happened to Vaulx? CBSMarketwatch hypothesizes that maybe there was a hedge fund offer too juicy to pass up. But who resigns from a job, any job, with no notice to your employer- and especially an employer who you worked for since 1987? Also, does Vaulx have no compassion for all of the investors- who so graciously gave their money to him even after Eveillard left?

I guess not. Perhaps more will be revealed in the coming days.

But for now, there are worse things than having a legendary investor running your money. He says there are few “values” to invest in currently, given the bullish stock market climate. But I’d take my chances with Eveillard running my money.

Welcome back, sir.