Tag: economy

What is the retiree’s biggest fear?

The retiree’s biggest fear is running out of money.

According to a recent survey, six out of ten retirees say they’re worried about their finances.  Their two biggest fears are getting sick and losing their assets to pay for medical care.  Their next greatest fear is that they’ll stay healthy and outlive their money.

And little wonder.  Interest rates on savings accounts have been near zero for years.  The stock markets remain scary to many potential investors.  And while the official inflation numbers are low, anyone who has shopped for food, filled their gas tank or visited a doctor knows that prices are going up rapidly.

This is a daunting environment for people who are managing their investments on their own.

Still others think they have diversified by having several “financial advisors” and accounts at several major investment firms.  What they actually end up having are accounts with several investment salesmen who make their money by selling them investment products.

How do high-net-worth families manage their finances?  Most prefer to work with a single firm to manage all their financial needs.  It’s a mistake to depend on stock and bond salesmen when it comes to providing planning and guidance.  They want someone who acts as a fiduciary.  A fiduciary is someone who puts your needs and ahead of his own.  That describes a fee-only RIA (Registered Investment Advisor) like Korving & Company.  Our concerns are your concerns.  Our goal is to alleviate people’s fears of running out of money in retirement.

Check out our website and see what we offer to families approaching retirement and those already in retirement.  And download and read the first three chapters of BEFORE I GO, free.

What is the purpose of a stock market?

Before there was a stock market, there were stock companies.

A stock company allows individuals to pool their money to create an organization to operate and grow.  Stock is used to determine how much a person owns of a company.  Owning a stock does not necessarily create wealth.  Wealth creation can only occur if the stock can be sold to someone else who is willing to pay you more for it than what you originally paid.  This led to the creation of a market for people who owned shares in stock companies.

A stock market has two functions.  First, it allows the owners of stock to sell their ownership interest easily and quickly.  Second, it also allows people who would like to be owners to buy an ownership interest quickly and easily.  Now even people who do not have substantial financial resources can participate in the growth in value of large enterprises.

For example, the founders of Apple were able to raise money for their company by selling their shares of Apple stock to people who were willing to bet that the company would be successful.  That was 1976.  In 1980 the shares of Apple were first allowed to be publicly traded.  As a result, the founding shareholders were able to profit from their original investment and the company itself raised millions of dollars that it could invest in growth.  It also allowed people who did not personally know the founders to become partial owners and benefit from the company’s growth.  The stock market allowed people who believed in Apple computers to bet on the company’s future, and also provided them with a ready market for their shares if they needed to sell or decided they no longer believed in the company’s future.

The bottom line is that the stock market creates liquidity.  Without liquidity it becomes much harder for a company to raise the capital it needs to grow in a modern economy.

What do younger investors want?

Schwab did a study about affluent investors aged 30 – 45.  The study wanted to determine what matters to this group, how they make decisions and their attitude toward investing.  That age group controls nearly $3.5 trillion in investable assets.  Schwab is interested because they are the top custodian for independent Registered Investment Advisors (RIAs) like Korving & Company and believe that RIAs are best able to service this group.

So what do these investors have in common?

  • The study revealed that they are anxious and insecure about the future because they have already experienced a couple of major economic crises, domestic terrorism, unemployment and several financial bubbles.
  • They don’t trust the industry, believing that they recite corporate talking points and don’t really care about them.
  • They are short-term focused and like to keep large amounts of cash as a safety net they can trust.
  • Success for them is “having the freedom to avoid hardship and to not be a burden to others.”

I should add that people in this age group are less likely to work for a company that offers a pension, making them more dependent on themselves for retirement.  Except for that, in many respects, this generation is not very different from preceding ones, except that they are more apt to rely on digital communication and the Internet, having grown up with computers.  Many in this group cannot differentiate between types of financial advisors, and do not understand the difference between the independent RIAs and the brokers that work for the “big box” stores.

Schwab’s conclusion:

“Our findings reveal that Generation Now investors want a trusted guide with expert knowledge who deeply understands them and their unique needs.  We believe independent advisors fit that need, but this generation just doesn’t know it yet.”
“Their ideal financial advisor relationship is with one whom they can build a trusted and transparent relationship, based on empathy and understanding of the whole person, not just their financial goals,” Schwab says.
“They want their advisor to provide planning and financial advice alongside expert advice in other related areas, such as tax or insurance.  Generation Now also expects to be heavily involved in decisions regarding their investment strategy.
“Advisor accessibility is important to this group.  They want to be able to communicate with advisors whenever, wherever, through a combination of in-person meetings as well as voice, text, e-mail and videoconferencing.”

It sounds as if this generation is looking for firms like ours.  Check out our new website.

Comments?

[contact-form][contact-field label=’Name’ type=’name’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Email’ type=’email’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Comment’ type=’textarea’ required=’1’/][/contact-form]

Five year returns can be misleading

Chris Latham at Financial Advisor talks about the words “long-term” and the fact that there is no consensus about its meaning.  If one year is not long-term, is 2, 5, 10 or more?  The longer the period being measured, the closer we get to actually talking about the long-term.  Of course we have to take into consideration that fact that our individual time horizons are not infinite.  A 20-year-old can afford to think in terms of a 70 year time span, someone 70 years old cannot.

Many people will look at a five-year span and make a judgement about the market, a stock or a mutual fund.  But there’s something revealing that tells us that we can be misled by these statistics.

In fact, one calendar year can make all the difference in the minds of stock investors. Compare the five-year period ending in 2012 with the same span ending in 2013. They look like two completely different time frames, even though they share three identical years. Counting dividends, the five years ended in 2012 returned 1.7{030251e622a83165372097b752b1e1477acc3e16319689a4bdeb1497eb0fac93} on the S&P 500, while the five years ended in 2013 returned 17.9{030251e622a83165372097b752b1e1477acc3e16319689a4bdeb1497eb0fac93}, the Times reports.
The long crawl up from the depths of the Great Recession accounts for the poor showing in the first snapshot, while last year’s 32.4{030251e622a83165372097b752b1e1477acc3e16319689a4bdeb1497eb0fac93} market rise accounts for the apparent miracle in the second.

Be cautious when viewing data that changes the beginning and end-points.  And keep in mind that market indexes are not important as a way of achieving financial freedom.

Getting business owners to diversify

 Successful business owners usually have strong confidence in the growth of their business.  As a result, they tend to invest most of their assets in their business.  They know their business, but are not nearly as knowledgeable about more liquid investments.  They are nervous about putting money into investment they can’t control and reluctant to turn large sums of money over to others to invest for them.

As a result, they often put their financial future at risk because the bulk of their net worth is tied up in the success or failure of their business.

The financial shock of 2008 brought this home to many companies.  Between 2008 and 2010 more than 200,000 small businesses closed.  The failure rate for new businesses is between 50{030251e622a83165372097b752b1e1477acc3e16319689a4bdeb1497eb0fac93} and 70{030251e622a83165372097b752b1e1477acc3e16319689a4bdeb1497eb0fac93}.  Once a business is established, the failure rate drops.  But any number of things can come along; changes in demographics, changes in the economy or even changes in surrounding area can cause a previously thriving business to close.

The challenge for the investment manager who offers to help the business owner diversify is to point out that a total focus on investing everything in his business leaves him and his family in a precarious situation.  One money manager likens it to riding a unicycle when they should be sitting on a piano bench.

The unicycle may be exciting and profitable, but you can easily fall.  The four legs of a piano bench are (1) the business, (2) a tax-qualified retirement plan, (3) a personal taxable portfolio and (4) real estate.  If the business is a huge success, the business owner wins big and, at retirement can sell out or leave it to his children.  If the business fails at some point, the other three legs of the piano bench are there to provide for his family and himself.

One investment advisor persuaded a reluctant entrepreneur to invest $5 million in a diversified portfolio instead of plowing it back into his company. At the meeting where the client finally agreed, his wife gave the advisor the thumbs-up behind her husband’s back, triumphantly mouthing the words, “My kids can go to college!”

[contact-form][contact-field label=’Name’ type=’name’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Email’ type=’email’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Website’ type=’url’/][contact-field label=’Comment’ type=’textarea’ required=’1’/][/contact-form]

Top 10 Best Value Colleges

A column in Financial Advisor caught my eye.  For those  who have children who plan to go to college, this may be worth reading.

For clients with college bound children, a study by The Princeton Review ranks both public and private colleges and universities to determine the ones that offer the best academics at an affordable cost.

Based on criteria including academics, costs and financial aid, the study also considered the percentage of graduating seniors who borrowed from any loan program and the average debt those students had at graduation.

The following public colleges are the top 10 of 75 , with No. 1 offering the highest value.

No. 10  State University of New York at Binghamton (Binghamton University)
No. 9 Truman State University
No. 8  College of William and Mary
No. 7  University of Florida
No. 6  University of California—Los Angeles
No. 5  University of Michigan—Ann Arbor
No. 4  North Carolina State University
No. 3  University of Virginia
No. 2  New College of Florida
No. 1  The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Whether you agree or disagree with these rankings, the cost of attending college has rocketing into the stratosphere and sending your children to college requires a plan well in advance of their matriculation.  A few things to keep in mind is that in-state tuition is often a fraction of the cost of sending your son or daughter out-of-state.  Setting up a college savings plan is always a good idea since it allows the college funds to grow tax-free. Taking out a college loan has become so popular that today, the college loan debt exceeds a trillion dollars.  However, college loans cannot be discharged through bankruptcy, if the student does not graduate (and many do not) the loan still needs to be paid, and college loan payments often extend for decades after the student has left school.

 

What’s a "Bubble?"

The word “bubble” has been thrown around a great deal with the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) at 16,000, the S&P 500 at 1800, and the Nasdaq Comp above 4000.  The term “bubble” is a scare word that makes people think of a repeat of the Tech Crash of 2000 or the real estate bubble that led to the financial crisis of 2008.

Cluifford Asness, whose firm manages $80 billion has a pet peeve and one of them is the loose use of the term “bubble.”

“The word “bubble,” even if you are not an efficient market fan (if you are, it should never be uttered outside the tub), is very overused. I stake out a middle ground between pure efficient markets, where the word is verboten, and the common overuse of the word that is my peeve. Whether a particular instance is a bubble will never be objective; we will always have disagreement ex ante and even ex post. But to have content, the term bubble should indicate a price that no reasonable future outcome can justify. I believe that tech stocks in early 2000 fit this description. I don’t think there were assumptions — short of them owning the GDP of the Earth — that justified their valuations. However, in the wake of 1999-2000 and 2007-20008, and with the prevalence of the use of the word “bubble” to describe these two instances, we have dumbed the word down and now use it too much. An asset or a security is often declared to be in a bubble when it is more accurate to describe it as “expensive” or possessing a “lower than normal expected return.” The descriptions “lower than normal expected return” and “bubble” are not the same thing.

Bloomberg columnist Barry Ritholtz comments:

“It would only take a small marginal improvement in the economy, or a small uptick in hiring, or heaven help us, even a modest increase in wages to increase revenues and drive profits significantly higher,”he current market valuations do not, in my opinion, have the characteristics of a “bubble.” “

Whether stocks, bonds or commodities are fairly valued, undervalued or overvalued will become apparent over time.   In the meantime, unless you are being paid to opine, it’s best to realize that fortune-telling is not the way to manage your portfolio.  Creating an all-weather portfolio with the asset allocation that will allow you to face any reasonable future is the best strategy.

 

Municipal Bond Risk

Municipal bonds are found in the portfolios of many higher income investors.  They have experienced great returns over the last 30 years.  Part of that has come from interest payments and part has come from bonds price appreciation.  Remember, falling interest rates (and we have seen interest rates fall since 1980) leads to higher bond prices.

The problem for bond investors is that rising interest rates have the opposite effect: bonds go down in price when rates go up.  And today’s low rates are largely being engineered by Federal Reserve policy of low, low rates to spur a slow-growth economy with high unemployment.  When the Fed stops easing, we can expect rates to rise, and perhaps rise rapidly.

Here’s Morgan Stanley’s take:

Investors in the $3.7 trillion municipal market will probably face negative returns in 2014 following declines this year, the first back-to-back annual losses since at least the 1980s, according to Morgan Stanley.
The company’s base-case scenario for city and state debt in 2014 calls for a loss of 1.7 percent to 4.1 percent, Michael Zezas, the bank’s chief muni strategist, said in a report released today. A year ago, he correctly predicted that munis would lose money in 2013 as yields rose from the lowest since the 1960s.

In addition, we have seen a rash of municipal bankruptcies which causes investors to be concerned about getting their money bank if a city defaults on its obligations as Detroit is set to do.

For investors who have accumulated large municipal bond positions either as individual bonds or as bond mutual funds, caution is the watchword.

Government shuts down: No sign of economic problems

The news has been co-opted by the partial government shut down with its attendant predictions of economic catastrophe if the government doesn’t re-open all its branches in a few hours.  Meanwhile in Realville, First Trust notes:

we’ve still seen the two ISM indices (on manufacturing and services), auto sales, chain-store sales, and two weeks of unemployment claims.  None of these reports suggests the economy has broken out either to the upside  or the downside from the pattern of Plow Horse growth of the past few years.  While real GDP itself probably slowed in Q3 to around 1.5{030251e622a83165372097b752b1e1477acc3e16319689a4bdeb1497eb0fac93} growth, the economy as a whole looks to be expanding at roughly a 2{030251e622a83165372097b752b1e1477acc3e16319689a4bdeb1497eb0fac93} annual rate over a two or three quarter average.
The bottom line on  the economy right now is that there is no sign the partial shutdown, or anything else for that matter, has knocked it off the same course it’s been on for the past few years.  Hopefully, when the government finally opens back up, it’ll do so with a better set of polices, which would help the plow horse pick up his pace.

It’s a different view than we get on the 24/7 cable shows, but it helps to look at reality when those around you are losing their heads.

Market commentary as we begin the fourth quarter of 2013

As the third quarter of 2013 came to a close, focus turned to Washington with the government shutdown and the looming November 1 debt limit.  As we write this, it remains to be seen how the competing factions will come to a resolution or if they’ll just end up kicking the can down the road, as they have done so many times in the past, without making any real compromises on the underlying issues.  From 1976 to 1996, the government shut down 17 times, spanning a total of 110 days.  Historically, government shutdowns have had no detectable long term effect on the markets.  The last, and longest, shutdown doesn’t appear to have hurt the economy.  That was mid-December 1995 until early January 1996, a three-week shutdown under President Clinton.  The year before the shutdown, real GDP grew 2.3{030251e622a83165372097b752b1e1477acc3e16319689a4bdeb1497eb0fac93}.  In the fourth quarter of 1995 it grew at an annual rate of 2.9{030251e622a83165372097b752b1e1477acc3e16319689a4bdeb1497eb0fac93} and then during the first quarter of 1996 it grew at an annual rate of 2.6{030251e622a83165372097b752b1e1477acc3e16319689a4bdeb1497eb0fac93}.  This was despite the shutdown and the East Coast Blizzard in January 1996, which was then followed by large floods.

While headline news will have short term effects on markets, over the long term, economic conditions and the direction of corporate profits will have the greatest and most long-lasting effects on portfolios.  Economic conditions have been slowly and steadily increasing over the past few years, and now Europe seems to have stabilized and may be beginning to experience modest growth.  China’s new leadership is working to transform that country’s economy from being export-oriented to one that is more focused on increased consumer consumption.  This will have a major impact on the future of global trade.

As we have said for several quarters now, we continue to remain optimistic about stocks and cautious on bonds.  Even though the Federal Reserve has indicated that they will not begin easing until the economy improves, and they have spelled out what they’ll consider improvement, just the mere mention by the Fed of future rate hikes sends bonds tumbling.  As we said last time, we think that the Fed being able to remove itself from the equation of the U.S. recovery is a net positive, not a net negative.  Additionally, we now have the November 1 debt ceiling looming, which could send both stocks and bonds oscillating as politicians and pundits take to the airwaves to bring a little “Halloween cheer” (sarcasm alert).  We think a last-minute deal will be struck to avoid any real damage, aside from the emotional toll imparted upon people who watch the news or the stock markets very closely.

Whatever comes our way, we are always positioning our portfolios to participate in further market gains and to cushion any market declines.  Over the long term the trend is up.  Please call if we can be of any other assistance to you or someone you care about.

How Does a Government Shutdown Affect Investments?

The stock markets do not like uncertainty and a government impasse leading to a partial shutdown leads to uncertainty.  People begin asking questions like: How long will it last?  Who will be affected?  What are the long-term consequences?  The day before the shutdown that began October 1, the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell by 129 points.  Traders said that the markets had been anticipating the political gridlock, which had contributed to the Dow’s recent slide.  The day the government actually shut down, the same index rose 63 points because positive economic news impressed investors more than the shutdown.

Despite the size of government and the number of people they employ, the economy as a whole has a much greater effect on the markets than a shutdown.

During a shutdown, money still flows into the Treasury Department via things like tax receipts and it still flows out via things like Social Security and interest payments on Treasury Bills.  The military, weather service, food inspections, border control, air traffic, prisons and even the U.S. Postal Service (“Neither snow, nor rain, nor sleet, nor hail, nor government shutdown shall keep the postmen from their appointed rounds”), they all keep operating.  And as long as the Treasury Department still has flexibility, it still pays the debt as it comes due without missing a beat.  The interest on the debt runs about $220 billion while tax revenues exceed $2.5 trillion, so there really is not a chance that the U.S. government will actually default.

The government purposely tries to make a shutdown much more painful than it really has to be by, for example, closing the National Mall, the World War II Memorial and other open air monuments and attractions in Washington, D.C., in an effort to get the public to put pressure on Congress to reach a settlement.

But if you need a passport or want to get into a national park (via a park entrance, anyway), you are out of luck.  Non-essential federal workers get furloughed and non-essential services stop.

You’ll surely hear certain analysts, pundits and politicians saying a shutdown will hurt the economy, but if history is any guide that is hard to prove.  Recently, The Washington Post listed every shutdown – there were 17 of them from 1976 to 1996, spanning a total of 110 days – and of those 110 days only 6 were during a recession.  That’s very few considering that the U.S. was in a recession about 14{030251e622a83165372097b752b1e1477acc3e16319689a4bdeb1497eb0fac93} of the time during those twenty years.

The last, and longest, shutdown doesn’t appear to have hurt the economy either.  That was mid-December 1995 until early January 1996, a three-week shutdown under President Clinton.  The year before the shutdown, real GDP grew 2.3{030251e622a83165372097b752b1e1477acc3e16319689a4bdeb1497eb0fac93}.  In the fourth quarter of 1995 it grew at an annual rate of 2.9{030251e622a83165372097b752b1e1477acc3e16319689a4bdeb1497eb0fac93} and then during the first quarter of 1996 it grew at an annual rate of 2.6{030251e622a83165372097b752b1e1477acc3e16319689a4bdeb1497eb0fac93}.  This was despite the shutdown and the East Coast Blizzard in January 1996, which was then followed by large floods.

Remember the dreaded sequester?  It was forecast to be an economic and political disaster.  Today few people actually remember it because most never felt it.  Paradoxically, the real result of sequesters and shutdowns may be the realization by the public that the government is spending and wasting too much, and that political wrangling by the two parties in charge does not help the economy and may actually hurt it.  In the late 1990s, that reaction slowed government spending relative to GDP dramatically and the U.S. eventually moved into a surplus.

In other words, if you look back at history and didn’t know beforehand when the government was in a shutdown, you would be hard pressed to ever figure it out.  Keep this in mind as politicians, journalists and pundits work overtime in the coming days trying to scare investors and the public with the ramifications of keeping the government shut.  In more ways than one, it may be a good thing.

With rising interest rates, what to do about bonds.

With interest rates increasing investors are noticing that their bonds are not doing nearly as well as their stocks.  In fact many investors may have lost money on bonds this year.  For example, the typical tax exempt bond fund has lost between 4 – 5{030251e622a83165372097b752b1e1477acc3e16319689a4bdeb1497eb0fac93} year-to-date.  What should investors do about bonds when the likelihood of rising interest rates is high?

The October issue of Financial Planning magazine give us an insight into what happened in the past when interest rates rose.

During the five-year period from 1977 through 1981, the federal discount rate rose to 13.42{030251e622a83165372097b752b1e1477acc3e16319689a4bdeb1497eb0fac93} from 5.46{030251e622a83165372097b752b1e1477acc3e16319689a4bdeb1497eb0fac93}, an increase of nearly 800 basis points, or 145.8{030251e622a83165372097b752b1e1477acc3e16319689a4bdeb1497eb0fac93}. During that period, the five-year annualized return of U.S. T-bills was an impressive 9.84{030251e622a83165372097b752b1e1477acc3e16319689a4bdeb1497eb0fac93}.  But T-bills are short-term bonds.

But bonds did not fare nearly as well. The Barclays one- to five-year government/credit index had a five-year annualized return of 6.61{030251e622a83165372097b752b1e1477acc3e16319689a4bdeb1497eb0fac93}, while the intermediate government/credit index had a 5.63{030251e622a83165372097b752b1e1477acc3e16319689a4bdeb1497eb0fac93} annualized return. The long government/credit index got hammered amid the rising rates, and ended the five-year period with an annualized return of -0.77{030251e622a83165372097b752b1e1477acc3e16319689a4bdeb1497eb0fac93}. Finally, the aggregate bond index had a five-year annualized return of 3.05{030251e622a83165372097b752b1e1477acc3e16319689a4bdeb1497eb0fac93}.

As every investor should know, bonds go down in price when interest rates go up but that decline is offset by the interest paid on the bonds.  If an investment manager knows what he is doing and protects his portfolios by avoiding exposure to long-dated government bonds the results will be acceptable. An annualized return of 5.63{030251e622a83165372097b752b1e1477acc3e16319689a4bdeb1497eb0fac93} is quite good when rates are increasing.

But one important note: It does not seem prudent to avoid bonds entirely during periods of rising interest rates. Bonds are a vitally important part of a diversified portfolio containing a wide variety of asset classes – during all times and seasons. Rather than trying to decide whether to be in or out of bonds, the more relevant issue would seem to be whether to use short-duration or long-duration bonds.

This, of course, is consistent with a strategic approach to portfolio design. Rather than completely remove an asset class from a portfolio, advisors and clients would be well advised to thoughtfully modify the components of an asset class. To use a nautical metaphor, rather than swapping boats, we simply trim the sails.

 

Marketing and Design by Array Digital

©  Korving & Company, LLC