The current priority at the Federal Reserve is to keep rates low to help the broad economy, especially housing and the money center banks, get healthy again. However, this has a deleterious effect over the long-term on savers and income investors. With short-term interest rates near zero and the Fed committed to keeping rates low for the next couple of years what is an income investor to do? Do you throw out your risk tolerance parameters and plow into stocks?
The short answer is no. You can maintain your risk profile while adapting to the current environment by embracing creative solutions in small percentages in your portfolio. Many solutions used in the past are probably not the solutions that will serve you best over the coming decade. Remember a successful portfolio funds an investor’s current and or future needs or liabilities, anything short of this is a failure.
For high net worth individuals the use of charitable trusts can create a satisfactory income stream. Tax breaks for some charitable trusts can help high net worth investors divest highly appreciated assets tax-free. The trust income goes to the investor and eventually the remainder goes to the charity. For the majority of investors this is not a prudent option.
There are several opportunities for investors not interested in trusts. First, mortgage backed securities funds are an option. These funds contain AAA/Aaa rated mortgage securities backed by the guarantee of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae. There are many low cost funds available that offer access to mortgage backed securities. The yields are in the 4.0 to 4.5 percent range.
Next, income investors might consider adding a small percentage of high dividend equities to the portfolio. One example might be adding a select dividend fund or a utility fund to your portfolio for the current income. Both types of funds offer a current dividend yield of 3.5 to 4.0 percent depending on the fund family and fund makeup.
Finally, the fundamentals within the high-yield bond market are strong. That is reflected in yields which are currently around 6.5 percent and approaching historical lows. The main risk to the health of corporate fundamentals would be a meaningful slowdown in the U.S. economy. Base case is that the economy does not come off the rails. The most probable economic outlook is for a slow-growth environment with reasonably steady interest rates. However, the economy is not robust enough, nor are yields high enough, to protect high-yield investors against certain macroeconomic shocks. Macroeconomic driven events - such as, the European debt situation, China's slowing economy, and geopolitical events in other parts of the world - will cause short-term gyrations in the funds value.
If your portfolio is predominately fixed income, adding a small percentage in each of the three types of income investments to your portfolio may actually decrease the overall risk profile through diversification. Minor adjustments can add value to your portfolio.
As always, to see the impact this strategy would have on your investments and cash flow discuss this with your (accredited) financial advisor.
CBlakely CFP®, CTFA, CMFC 05/2012
Sources: Morningstar, iShares
Showing posts with label investments. Show all posts
Showing posts with label investments. Show all posts
Monday, May 7, 2012
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Stories Sell
Happy Ending?
The stories our leaders tell us matter, nearly as much as the stories our parents tell us as children, because they orient us to what is and to what could be. Our brains evolved to expect stories with a particular structure, with good guys and bad guys, a hill to be climbed or a battle to be won.
In that context, Americans needed their president to tell them a story that made sense of what they had just been through, what caused it, and how it was going to end. We are all scared and angry. Many have have lost their jobs, some their homes. This was a disaster made by Wall Street’s best educated, who speculated with our assets and therefore our futures. It was caused by politicians like Phil Gramm who told us that if we just deregulated we would be more competitive. Unabashed greed and recklessness were the unintended consequences.
We are suffering from the same ending we experienced 80 years ago, when the same people sold our grandparents the same bill of goods. Can we draw on their wisdom?
Like most Americans, at this point, I have no idea what the President believes on virtually any issue. The president tells us he prefers a “balanced” approach to deficit reduction, one that marries “revenue enhancements” (a weak way of describing popular taxes on the rich and big corporations that are evading them) with “entitlement cuts” (an equally poor choice of words that implies that people who’ve worked their whole lives are looking for handouts).
When 400 people control more of the wealth than 150 million of their fellow Americans, when the average middle-class family has seen its income stagnate over the last 30 years while the richest 1 percent has seen its income rise astronomically, it bodes ill for the U.S. economy. Now that Standard & Poor’s has downgraded the U.S.’s AAA credit rating, it is important to respond boldly and, at the same time, lower expectations.
The first step is for our political leaders to frankly acknowledge the problems at hand: The U.S. economy will face a hard slog for an extended period; the political system is polarized; and, under current policies, the budget deficit will remain large.
Expect Slow Growth
We can expect sluggish economic activity for years, not quarters, and we face the risk of another recession. Those who in January were predicting growth of 4 percent or more for 2011 did not sufficiently appreciate the evidence from economists that foretell what most often comes after a systemic financial collapse is a decade of weak growth. (Read “This Time is Different: A Panoramic View of Eight Centuries of Financial Crises.”) Two years ago Bill Gross of PIMCO called it the “new normal.” I sense he was right.
The Executive branch needs to lead us again with a simple but strong narrative repeated over and over to keep our attention focused on the slog ahead and importantly the light at the end of the tunnel.
This correction is likely near a bottom and therefore, valuations in the U.S. are now attractive on a long-term basis. Price to earnings ratios on forward (future) earnings for most major U.S. stock market averages are under ten. On an earnings yield basis, stocks look remarkably attractive relative to bonds.
On a relative basis, stocks are about as cheap as they have ever been compared with bonds.
Hard Assets - It’s too late to buy gold and other precious metal safe havens for this cycle. In the long-run no one knows. But, a price drop would happen quickly, if at all.
Bonds - Keep your powder dry. Shorten bond durations and look to corporate notes for a little yield, or Canadian or German government bonds if you must own sovereign debt. There is very little value left in the U.S. Treasury curve at this point.
Equities - Financials have completely broken down, but have dropped to extremely attractive long-term values. Consumer staples and utilities act defensively during market downturns, but leadership usually shifts to other sectors at the bottom of the market. Consumer discretionary, industrials, materials and tech should lead as the economy finds stable footing.
CBlakely CFP, CTFA 08/2011
Sources: This Time is Different: A Panoramic View of Eight Centuries of Financial Crises, Reinhart, Rogoff: The New York Times Sunday Op-ed page July 2011, Bloomberg LP. PIMCO
The stories our leaders tell us matter, nearly as much as the stories our parents tell us as children, because they orient us to what is and to what could be. Our brains evolved to expect stories with a particular structure, with good guys and bad guys, a hill to be climbed or a battle to be won.
In that context, Americans needed their president to tell them a story that made sense of what they had just been through, what caused it, and how it was going to end. We are all scared and angry. Many have have lost their jobs, some their homes. This was a disaster made by Wall Street’s best educated, who speculated with our assets and therefore our futures. It was caused by politicians like Phil Gramm who told us that if we just deregulated we would be more competitive. Unabashed greed and recklessness were the unintended consequences.
We are suffering from the same ending we experienced 80 years ago, when the same people sold our grandparents the same bill of goods. Can we draw on their wisdom?
Like most Americans, at this point, I have no idea what the President believes on virtually any issue. The president tells us he prefers a “balanced” approach to deficit reduction, one that marries “revenue enhancements” (a weak way of describing popular taxes on the rich and big corporations that are evading them) with “entitlement cuts” (an equally poor choice of words that implies that people who’ve worked their whole lives are looking for handouts).
When 400 people control more of the wealth than 150 million of their fellow Americans, when the average middle-class family has seen its income stagnate over the last 30 years while the richest 1 percent has seen its income rise astronomically, it bodes ill for the U.S. economy. Now that Standard & Poor’s has downgraded the U.S.’s AAA credit rating, it is important to respond boldly and, at the same time, lower expectations.
The first step is for our political leaders to frankly acknowledge the problems at hand: The U.S. economy will face a hard slog for an extended period; the political system is polarized; and, under current policies, the budget deficit will remain large.
Expect Slow Growth
We can expect sluggish economic activity for years, not quarters, and we face the risk of another recession. Those who in January were predicting growth of 4 percent or more for 2011 did not sufficiently appreciate the evidence from economists that foretell what most often comes after a systemic financial collapse is a decade of weak growth. (Read “This Time is Different: A Panoramic View of Eight Centuries of Financial Crises.”) Two years ago Bill Gross of PIMCO called it the “new normal.” I sense he was right.
Government Opportunity
We should take this opportunity to reconsider what government should properly do. We need to invest more in roads, bridges, railroads and the like, and the best way to do this would be to create a new infrastructure bank in the same mold as the Tennessee Valley Authority. The Executive branch needs to lead us again with a simple but strong narrative repeated over and over to keep our attention focused on the slog ahead and importantly the light at the end of the tunnel.
Our Opportunity
Rahm Emanuel, the former White House chief of staff, once famously remarked that one should never let a serious crisis go to waste. It may be time to make nuanced shifts in your portfolio.
This correction is likely near a bottom and therefore, valuations in the U.S. are now attractive on a long-term basis. Price to earnings ratios on forward (future) earnings for most major U.S. stock market averages are under ten. On an earnings yield basis, stocks look remarkably attractive relative to bonds.
On a relative basis, stocks are about as cheap as they have ever been compared with bonds.
Hard Assets - It’s too late to buy gold and other precious metal safe havens for this cycle. In the long-run no one knows. But, a price drop would happen quickly, if at all.
Bonds - Keep your powder dry. Shorten bond durations and look to corporate notes for a little yield, or Canadian or German government bonds if you must own sovereign debt. There is very little value left in the U.S. Treasury curve at this point.
Equities - Financials have completely broken down, but have dropped to extremely attractive long-term values. Consumer staples and utilities act defensively during market downturns, but leadership usually shifts to other sectors at the bottom of the market. Consumer discretionary, industrials, materials and tech should lead as the economy finds stable footing.
CBlakely CFP, CTFA 08/2011
Sources: This Time is Different: A Panoramic View of Eight Centuries of Financial Crises, Reinhart, Rogoff: The New York Times Sunday Op-ed page July 2011, Bloomberg LP. PIMCO
Monday, July 18, 2011
A Huge Bust (economic)
How many books, articles, blogs, and news stories are out there attempting to explain why the economy can’t leave the Great Recession in the dust and start adding large numbers of jobs? The deficit is too big. The stimulus was flawed. China is crushing us. Businesses are overregulated. Wall Street is under-regulated. The list goes on.
My sense is these are all symptoms of something else, something bigger. The main culprit is a tremendous economic bust and we are still in the middle of it. It isn’t simply a housing bust. It’s a deflation of the great consumer bubble, decades in the making. (Only the very wealthy and very poor are unaffected.)
For example, the auto industry is on pace to sell 28 percent fewer new vehicles this year than it did 10 years ago — and 10 years ago was 2001, when the country was in recession! Sales of ovens and stoves are on pace to be at their lowest level since the early 90’s. Home sales over the past year have fallen back to their lowest point since the crisis began. And big-ticket items are hardly the only problem.
The Federal Reserve Bank of New York recently published a report on what it calls discretionary service spending, a category that excludes housing, food and health care and includes restaurant meals, entertainment, education and insurance among others. Going back decades, such spending had never fallen more than 3 percent per capita in a recession. In this slump, it is down almost 7 percent, and still has not really begun to recover.
Retail sales were weaker than expected, and consumer confidence fell, causing economists to downgrade their estimates for economic growth yet again. It’s a familiar routine. Forecasters in Washington and on Wall Street keep saying the recovery’s problems are temporary — 10 years is temporary if your time horizon is 500 years, mine is not.
If you’re looking a reasonable explanation for the terrible job market, it is this great consumer bust. Business executives are only rational to hold back on hiring if they do not know when customers will fully return. Consumers, for the most part, are coping with a loss of wealth and an uncertain future (pushing back durable goods purchases). Both consumers and executives are panicky given the latest economic problems.
We are feeling the deferred pain from 25 years of excess, as people try to rebuild their depleted savings. This pattern is a classic one. The definitive book about financial crises has become “This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly,” Surveying hundreds of years of crises around the world the authors conclude that debt is the primary cause and that the aftermath is “deep and prolonged,” with “profound declines in output and employment.” On average, a modern financial crisis has caused the unemployment rate to rise for more than four years and by 7 percentage points. (We’re now at almost four years and 5 percentage points.) The recovery takes many years more.
The notion that the United States needs to begin moving away from its consumer economy — toward more of an investment and production economy, with rising exports, expanding factories and more good-paying service jobs — has become so commonplace that it’s a cliché. It’s also true. And the consumer bust shows why. The old consumer economy is gone, and it’s not coming back anytime soon.
Sure, house and car sales will eventually rebound, as the economy slowly recovers and the population continues expanding. But consumer spending will not soon return to the growth rates of the 1980s and ’90s. They depended on income people didn’t have. (I might suggest underweighting the consumer discretionary sector for the near term and not for the reasons you would think, with a P/E over 19X for the sector it’s a too expensive and may be overdue for a correction considering where we are in the business cycle.)
The choice, then, is between starting to make the transition to a different economy and enduring years of fits and starts in the economy.
The easy thing now might be to proclaim that debt is the devil and ask everyone to get thrifty. History, however, has a different verdict. If governments stop spending at the same time that consumers do, the economy can enter a vicious downward cycle (see the Great Depression for details).
But the debt-ceiling debate doesn’t have to be yet another problem for the economy. The right kind of agreement could help soften the consumer bust and also speed the transition to a different kind of economy.
Politics, of course, makes many of the current ideas being discussed unlikely to happen anytime soon. Unfortunately, though, these debt-ceiling talks won’t be the final chance for Washington to help the country recover from the great consumer bust. That’s the thing about consumer busts - they can last for a long time.
CBlakely CFP®, CTFA, CMFC 07-2011
Sources: New York Times, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, “This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly” - Carmen M. Reinhart, and Kenneth S. Rogoff
My sense is these are all symptoms of something else, something bigger. The main culprit is a tremendous economic bust and we are still in the middle of it. It isn’t simply a housing bust. It’s a deflation of the great consumer bubble, decades in the making. (Only the very wealthy and very poor are unaffected.)
For example, the auto industry is on pace to sell 28 percent fewer new vehicles this year than it did 10 years ago — and 10 years ago was 2001, when the country was in recession! Sales of ovens and stoves are on pace to be at their lowest level since the early 90’s. Home sales over the past year have fallen back to their lowest point since the crisis began. And big-ticket items are hardly the only problem.
The Federal Reserve Bank of New York recently published a report on what it calls discretionary service spending, a category that excludes housing, food and health care and includes restaurant meals, entertainment, education and insurance among others. Going back decades, such spending had never fallen more than 3 percent per capita in a recession. In this slump, it is down almost 7 percent, and still has not really begun to recover.
Retail sales were weaker than expected, and consumer confidence fell, causing economists to downgrade their estimates for economic growth yet again. It’s a familiar routine. Forecasters in Washington and on Wall Street keep saying the recovery’s problems are temporary — 10 years is temporary if your time horizon is 500 years, mine is not.
If you’re looking a reasonable explanation for the terrible job market, it is this great consumer bust. Business executives are only rational to hold back on hiring if they do not know when customers will fully return. Consumers, for the most part, are coping with a loss of wealth and an uncertain future (pushing back durable goods purchases). Both consumers and executives are panicky given the latest economic problems.
We are feeling the deferred pain from 25 years of excess, as people try to rebuild their depleted savings. This pattern is a classic one. The definitive book about financial crises has become “This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly,” Surveying hundreds of years of crises around the world the authors conclude that debt is the primary cause and that the aftermath is “deep and prolonged,” with “profound declines in output and employment.” On average, a modern financial crisis has caused the unemployment rate to rise for more than four years and by 7 percentage points. (We’re now at almost four years and 5 percentage points.) The recovery takes many years more.
The notion that the United States needs to begin moving away from its consumer economy — toward more of an investment and production economy, with rising exports, expanding factories and more good-paying service jobs — has become so commonplace that it’s a cliché. It’s also true. And the consumer bust shows why. The old consumer economy is gone, and it’s not coming back anytime soon.
Sure, house and car sales will eventually rebound, as the economy slowly recovers and the population continues expanding. But consumer spending will not soon return to the growth rates of the 1980s and ’90s. They depended on income people didn’t have. (I might suggest underweighting the consumer discretionary sector for the near term and not for the reasons you would think, with a P/E over 19X for the sector it’s a too expensive and may be overdue for a correction considering where we are in the business cycle.)
The choice, then, is between starting to make the transition to a different economy and enduring years of fits and starts in the economy.
The easy thing now might be to proclaim that debt is the devil and ask everyone to get thrifty. History, however, has a different verdict. If governments stop spending at the same time that consumers do, the economy can enter a vicious downward cycle (see the Great Depression for details).
But the debt-ceiling debate doesn’t have to be yet another problem for the economy. The right kind of agreement could help soften the consumer bust and also speed the transition to a different kind of economy.
Politics, of course, makes many of the current ideas being discussed unlikely to happen anytime soon. Unfortunately, though, these debt-ceiling talks won’t be the final chance for Washington to help the country recover from the great consumer bust. That’s the thing about consumer busts - they can last for a long time.
CBlakely CFP®, CTFA, CMFC 07-2011
Sources: New York Times, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, “This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly” - Carmen M. Reinhart, and Kenneth S. Rogoff
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Where to Invest Now for the Next 30 Years (Give or Take)
The largest economies 2011:
U.S., China, Japan, Germany, France, UK
The largest economies 2041: (30 years from now)
China, U.S., India, Japan, Brazil, Russia
If you have a long-term investment perspective and think globally about asset allocation, it may be time to review where you are invested internationally. If you are considering international investing you may want to consider a deeper analysis of these up and comers. Growth generated by the large developing countries, particularly India, China, Brazil and Russia could become a much larger force in the world economy than it is now – much larger than many investors currently expect.
Goldman Sachs issued an optimistic research report on global economies in 2003 which illustrated how China’s economy would overtake Japan’s economy as early as 2016. Well, they were right, kind of, it did happen, it happened in 2010. Maybe Goldman wasn’t optimistic enough.
A lot can happen over 30 years and there is a good chance that the right conditions in one or another countries economy will not fall into place and any projection will not be realized. However, if the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) pursue sound policies (I’m talking mostly to you Russia) these projections may indeed become a reality. Remember, fifty years ago Japan and Germany were struggling to emerge from reconstruction. Thirty years ago South Korea looked a lot like North Korea looks today.
The progress of the BRICs will be critical to how the world economy evolves; they could become a dominant force in generating spending growth over the next few decades.
As developing economies grow, they have the potential to post higher growth rates as they catch up with the developed world. China's economy during the past 30 years has changed from a centrally planned system that was largely closed to international trade to a more market-oriented economy that has a rapidly growing private sector and is a major player in the global economy, not to mention the green economy.
There is a well-known existing econometric model from Levine and Renelt (http://www.fordham.edu/economics/mcleod/LevineandRenelt1992.pdf) based on cross-country econometric research that explains average GDP growth over the next the next thirty years as a function of income per capita, investment rates, population growth and secondary school enrollments. This closely matches the Goldman projections (in parenthesis) which employ a very different technique. The results are as follows:
Brazil – 3.3 (3.7) Russia – 3.5 (3.9) India –5.3 (5.8) China -5.8 (5.6)
What are the implications? Well, the weight of BRICs in investment portfolios could rise sharply. The movement of capital might move further in their favor and significant currency realignments would take place.
As we become a shrinking part of the world economy, the accompanying shifts in spending could provide significant opportunities for many global companies like Coke and Caterpillar. Being involved in emerging markets is likely becoming an important strategic choice for many firms large and small.
Therefore, being invested in and involved in the right markets –particularly the right emerging markets may become an increasingly important strategic choice. While international investing does not reduce portfolio risk by a significant amount, it is measureable. And it does increase a portfolios expected return slightly and in the long run that’s what equity investors are looking for – whether stocks are 20 or 80 percent of the portfolio.
CP Blakely - CFP®, CTFA, CMFC 12/2010
Sources: CIA The World FactBook, Global Economics Paper Number 99 - Goldman Sachs, American Economic Review Vol.82 pp. 942-963
Friday, September 18, 2009
Asset Allocation in a Flat World (think globally, not locally)
Global Diversification
One of the three big questions investors must consider today is: How and how much should one allocate to stocks in and outside of the U.S.? In his book, "When Markets Collide," author Mohamed El-Erian describes a multilateral economic future in which domestic demand in emerging markets is a counterbalance to U.S. growth. His recommendation is that U.S. investors be exposed to a globally diversified set of stocks, with only a third to one-half in the U.S.
If you agree, and we do, then what does "globally diversified" actually mean and how do you determine how much and where?
The difficult issue is determining a valid reference point. The obvious approach would be to start with an established benchmark as a frame of reference. A good neutral frame of reference would be the total world stock market value, except for the risk that constantly annoys capitalization weighted markets - you potentially overweight overvalued markets! A better alternative might be economic size as measured by GDP in that the weightings are not affected by short-term market momentum or overvaluations.
The total world stock market value and GDP for 2008 is as follows:
mkt. value GDP
U.S. 36% 23%
Europe 26% 36%
Asia Pacific 28% 26%
Mid East/Africa 3% 6%
Americas 4% 7%
Canada 3% 2%
Implementation
The most common approach is to achieve targeted international equity country weightings using a combination of developed international and global emerging markets strategies. Alignment with the MSCI EAFE (Europe, Australasia and the Far East) and the MSCI EM (Emerging Markets) Index will accomplish this.
These markets vary from relatively to significantly inefficient, therefore our suggestion would be to engage active portfolio managers who have the ability to create alpha (excess risk-adjusted return) consistently (keep the index funds for your short duration fixed income funds and large cap U.S. funds).
It is possible that the next ten years will bring lower correlations of international markets with the U.S., as regions like Asia decouple as they mature and become less dependent on the U.S. and continue to demonstrate growth in their domestic economies.
Christopher Blakely Sept. 2009
sources: International Monetary Fund, MSCI
One of the three big questions investors must consider today is: How and how much should one allocate to stocks in and outside of the U.S.? In his book, "When Markets Collide," author Mohamed El-Erian describes a multilateral economic future in which domestic demand in emerging markets is a counterbalance to U.S. growth. His recommendation is that U.S. investors be exposed to a globally diversified set of stocks, with only a third to one-half in the U.S.
If you agree, and we do, then what does "globally diversified" actually mean and how do you determine how much and where?
The difficult issue is determining a valid reference point. The obvious approach would be to start with an established benchmark as a frame of reference. A good neutral frame of reference would be the total world stock market value, except for the risk that constantly annoys capitalization weighted markets - you potentially overweight overvalued markets! A better alternative might be economic size as measured by GDP in that the weightings are not affected by short-term market momentum or overvaluations.
The total world stock market value and GDP for 2008 is as follows:
mkt. value GDP
U.S. 36% 23%
Europe 26% 36%
Asia Pacific 28% 26%
Mid East/Africa 3% 6%
Americas 4% 7%
Canada 3% 2%
Implementation
The most common approach is to achieve targeted international equity country weightings using a combination of developed international and global emerging markets strategies. Alignment with the MSCI EAFE (Europe, Australasia and the Far East) and the MSCI EM (Emerging Markets) Index will accomplish this.
These markets vary from relatively to significantly inefficient, therefore our suggestion would be to engage active portfolio managers who have the ability to create alpha (excess risk-adjusted return) consistently (keep the index funds for your short duration fixed income funds and large cap U.S. funds).
It is possible that the next ten years will bring lower correlations of international markets with the U.S., as regions like Asia decouple as they mature and become less dependent on the U.S. and continue to demonstrate growth in their domestic economies.
Christopher Blakely Sept. 2009
sources: International Monetary Fund, MSCI
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Important New IRA Rules
Starting January 1, 2010 the qualifying income limits that have prevented many individuals from converting a traditional IRA or employer-sponsored retirement plan to a Roth will be eliminated. The change is one of the most important on the IRA landscape in years. The question most frequently asked is, “should I convert my traditional IRA to a Roth IRA?”
There is no simple answer but there are several important considerations.
First there is the fact that there is little to no advantage to doing a Roth IRA conversion if you have to withdraw money to pay the resulting income tax from other retirement plan assets.
Moreover, conversion to a Roth IRA should be account balance neutral (see the table below for a sample illustration).
There is no simple answer but there are several important considerations.
First there is the fact that there is little to no advantage to doing a Roth IRA conversion if you have to withdraw money to pay the resulting income tax from other retirement plan assets.
Moreover, conversion to a Roth IRA should be account balance neutral (see the table below for a sample illustration).
And yet there may be several reasons to consider conversion. At RKM we have the capacity to run the numbers to assist you in making the right choice.
+ When rates are going down the conversion likely makes no sense.
+ When interest rates are going up the conversion is more likely to make sense.
+ Conversions are likely better for the person who doesn’t need to live off the funds. There are no required distributions associated with a Roth IRA. With traditional IRAs, you must begin tapping your account after reaching age 70½. In doing so, you increase your taxable income starting in your 70’s.
+ Conversions are generally better for a person that has other funds to pay the taxes. Paying taxes with IRA assets defeats the purpose.
+ Conversions for a couple may make sense.
+ Conversions for a person with an estate tax issues will make more sense than for a person without. Your estate ends up with a higher percentage in tax-favorable retirement plans.
+ Conversions to leave a Roth IRA to grandchildren often have merit. Because Roth IRA owners are not subject to required minimum distribution rules the assets in the account continue to grow tax-free. And over a period of years this growth can be exponential. Although Roth beneficiaries are required to take distributions each year the withdrawals are tax-free. Making the Roth a great retirement asset for which to transfer the greatest amount of wealth.
+ Conversions for a person with net operating losses or other loss carry-forwards can make sense. In order to realize this favorable tax attribute there is the option of using a Roth IRA conversion to “offset” the loss or carry-forward.
+ Triggering large capital gains to pay the income tax on the Roth IRA conversion, one essentially loses tax deferral that might otherwise normally occur in a portfolio – this may make a conversion to costly.
+ A person who will need the money in retirement will need to withdraw less from a Roth IRA, because they won't need to cover the tax liability. This leaves more money in the account and leaving more in the account can be a great comfort during retirement and adding a tax-free account gives you the most flexibility to keep taxes low in retirement.
Who Qualifies?
Individuals whose modified adjusted gross income for 2009 is $120,000 or more can’t contribute. For couples who file joint tax returns, the cutoff is $176,000.You can’t convert traditional IRA assets to a Roth if your household’s modified adjusted gross income exceeds $100,000. A married person who files a separate tax return is prohibited from converting—no matter how what their income level. While the income limits for funding a Roth will remain, the rules for conversions are about to change.
As part of the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act, the federal government is eliminating permanently, the $100,000 income limit for Roth conversions, as well as the restriction on spouses who file separate tax returns. The changes also should allow more retirees—who rolled over their holdings from 401(k)’s and other workplace savings plans into IRAs—to convert to Roth IRA’s.
When you convert assets from a traditional IRA or workplace plan to a Roth, you have to pay income tax on all pretax contributions and earnings included in the amount you convert. However, you may either report the amount you convert in 2010 on your tax return for that year or spread the amount converted equally across your 2011 and 2012 tax returns, paying any resulting tax in those years. The two-year option is a one-time offer for 2010 conversions.
If you are age 70½ or older and taking required minimum distributions from a traditional IRA or workplace plan, you can convert remaining traditional IRA assets to a Roth.
If you hold traditional IRAs made up largely of pretax contributions, such as a 401(k) rollover, your tax bill could be steep. One way to mitigate the tax-bill pain is to get your tax advisor to help you figure out how much you could convert within your current tax bracket each year without bumping yourself into a higher one. Interestingly, the new rules come at a time when many IRAs have significantly declined in value, meaning the taxes on such conversions will likely be lower, as well. And with taxes expected to rise in coming years, the idea of an account that’s safe from tax increases may appeal to you.
If you expect your income to be lower in retirement—and tax rates to stay about where they are—then a Roth conversion might not make sense. Whether you convert or not basically depends on what you expect to happen with your income in retirement, compared with your income while working, and whether you’re more comfortable paying taxes sooner at current rates or betting on lower taxes later.
First Things First
First look at past tax returns you have in file boxes. You’re supposed to keep a running record of nondeductible IRA contributions on IRS Form 8606 and file it with your tax return. If you haven’t done so, you can either buy back your old tax returns from the IRS, using Form 4506, or you can order a free transcript of everything that’s reported about you to the IRS, using Form 4506-T. Included in your transcript is information from IRS Form 5498, which reports contributions you made to an IRA. Other resources are year-end statements from your IRA custodian.
Some owners of IRAs that hold variable annuities with depressed account values are planning to convert those investments to Roth IRAs as well. The current value of the underlying investments in their variable annuities has fallen below their income benefit or death benefit. In that situation, if you convert to a Roth, you’d pay tax on the lower account value—and potentially get a higher benefit in the future, tax-free.
Still, if you have a variable annuity and you’re considering a Roth conversion, make sure you value the account according to the latest IRS rules. The IRS ruled that you have to get the actual fair-market value of your account from the insurance company and use that number.
The Next Steps
Organize paperwork for any nondeductible IRA contributions you’ve made in the past. By taking that step, you should be able to come up with an estimate of how much of your potential conversion would be taxable. If you expect your 2010 income to be similar to 2009 you can look up the tax brackets at http://www.irs.gov/ to get an idea of the taxes to be paid.
It may help to consult a financial planner or tax advisor who has experience working with retirees relying on IRAs. The tax rules governing IRAs are convoluted and obtuse. A mistake may leave you with significant unintended consequences.
Chris Blakely, CTFA 08-09
Sources: The Wall Street Journal, IRS.gov, rothconversion.com
Friday, June 19, 2009
The New Normal
The New Normal
In a recent speech Bill Gross of PIMCO outlined what his firm has termed the "New Normal." In a world of more regulation, private-sector deleveraging and less consumption, "it's hard for PIMCO to imagine" the Dow Jones Industrial Average/quotes/comstock/10w!i:dji/delayed climbing back to 14,000 or home prices returning to 2006 levels, growth will be stunted," he said. "It will be a different type of world and we have to get used to that."
“The U.S. economy will grow at between 1 and 2 percent a year rather than 2 to 3 percent a year for the next three to five years at least, that will make a significant difference for corporate profit growth," he said. Moreover, unemployment will hover around 7 to 8 percent rather than the recently typical 4 to 5 percent, he added, and the higher rate would be around "for a long time to come." Gross added that inflation would also start to accelerate in the near future.
This “New Normal” economic climate prompts investment advisors to question many previously held assumptions -- especially about whether stocks will outperform bonds, and what this means for their portfolios. Data shows that over certain time cycles, bonds have outperformed stocks.
Many experts have been pointing out how great U.S. government bonds have done the past 30 years – which they have - but in our view at RKM it's nearly mathematically impossible for bonds to do that again, based on current yields. The future can't be like the past; in fact it might be a mirror image – that is a reversed image.
We are convinced that equities now are priced more attractively. Government bond yields coupled with the looming threat of inflation - the curse of fixed-income investors - as the government prints money to combat the financial crisis provides more ammunition for this case.
What about the Banks? Financial engineering had supplanted real engineering in cities like London and New York and whole economies (Iceland) became dominated by the fast growing financial services industry. In the US, financial services’ share of total corporate profits increased from 10 percent in the early 1980’s to 40 percent in 2007! The stock market value of financial services firms increased from 6 percent in the early 1980’s to 23 percent in 2007! Why didn’t they see this crisis coming?
Relying on financial innovation has proved disastrous - think 80’s S&L crisis, 90’s international banking and LTCM crisis and the debacle we are still living. In “A Short History of Financial Euphoria,” economist John Kenneth Galbraith noted that: "Financial operations do not lend themselves to innovation. What is recurrently so described and celebrated is, without exception, a small variation on an established design . . . The world of finance hails the invention of the wheel over and over again, often in a slightly more unstable version." At this point we recommend avoiding bank stocks and bank sector mutual funds until the smoke clears.
What to do
Maintaining your wealth in the future will require strategies that reflect this changed vision of global economic growth. Bond investors should confine purchases to shorter maturities where price protection is more probable and as inflation increases, cash from maturing notes can be reinvested at higher rates. Investors may experience lower rates of return than what they grew accustomed to until 2008. Returns are the result of an economic environment.
In light of this “new normal” reality, investors should look for stable income from a portion of their investments, rather than reaching for returns. Short-term bond ladders and income paying stocks are two good examples.
Also, there is a chance that the dollar will lose its reserve status. The U.S. simply has too much debt. To be ready for that day, investors should invest outside the U.S., in faster growth economies. In particular, the BRIC countries - Brazil, Russia, India and China, for instance, consumption in China is 35 percent of GDP compared to nearly 70 percent in the U.S.- that shows huge growth potential.
PIMCO’s co-CIO’s Gross and El-Erian sum things up succinctly with the following half dozen sentences. “For the next 3–5 years, we expect a world of muted growth, in the context of a continuing shift away from the G-3 [U.S., Japan and Europe] and toward the systemically important emerging economies, led by China. It is a world where the public sector overstays as a provider of goods that belong in the private sector.”
“The banking system will be a shadow of its former self. With regulation more expansive in form and reach, the sector will be de-risked, de-levered, and subject to greater burden sharing. The forces of consolidation and shrinkage will spread beyond banks, impacting a host of non-bank financial institutions as well as the investment management industry.”
“In the next few years, the historical pace of growth in potential output will face many headwinds. Excessive regulation, higher taxation, and government intervention will be among the factors that will constrain the growth.”
If the above holds true and you are paying your advisor 2 or 3 percent in total fees your portfolio may suffer needlessly, therefore think about lowering your costs. As John Bogle was recently quoted saying, “A financial system that takes too much out of investor returns doesn't create additional value. We want to beat the market but will inevitably fail because of [transaction] costs, so I question our values and what is really enough.”
Chris Blakely, June 2009
Sources: PIMCO, Bloomberg LP, JK Galbraith, John Bogle, Morningstar, Marketwatch.com, NBER
In a recent speech Bill Gross of PIMCO outlined what his firm has termed the "New Normal." In a world of more regulation, private-sector deleveraging and less consumption, "it's hard for PIMCO to imagine" the Dow Jones Industrial Average/quotes/comstock/10w!i:dji/delayed climbing back to 14,000 or home prices returning to 2006 levels, growth will be stunted," he said. "It will be a different type of world and we have to get used to that."
“The U.S. economy will grow at between 1 and 2 percent a year rather than 2 to 3 percent a year for the next three to five years at least, that will make a significant difference for corporate profit growth," he said. Moreover, unemployment will hover around 7 to 8 percent rather than the recently typical 4 to 5 percent, he added, and the higher rate would be around "for a long time to come." Gross added that inflation would also start to accelerate in the near future.
This “New Normal” economic climate prompts investment advisors to question many previously held assumptions -- especially about whether stocks will outperform bonds, and what this means for their portfolios. Data shows that over certain time cycles, bonds have outperformed stocks.
Many experts have been pointing out how great U.S. government bonds have done the past 30 years – which they have - but in our view at RKM it's nearly mathematically impossible for bonds to do that again, based on current yields. The future can't be like the past; in fact it might be a mirror image – that is a reversed image.
We are convinced that equities now are priced more attractively. Government bond yields coupled with the looming threat of inflation - the curse of fixed-income investors - as the government prints money to combat the financial crisis provides more ammunition for this case.
What about the Banks? Financial engineering had supplanted real engineering in cities like London and New York and whole economies (Iceland) became dominated by the fast growing financial services industry. In the US, financial services’ share of total corporate profits increased from 10 percent in the early 1980’s to 40 percent in 2007! The stock market value of financial services firms increased from 6 percent in the early 1980’s to 23 percent in 2007! Why didn’t they see this crisis coming?
Relying on financial innovation has proved disastrous - think 80’s S&L crisis, 90’s international banking and LTCM crisis and the debacle we are still living. In “A Short History of Financial Euphoria,” economist John Kenneth Galbraith noted that: "Financial operations do not lend themselves to innovation. What is recurrently so described and celebrated is, without exception, a small variation on an established design . . . The world of finance hails the invention of the wheel over and over again, often in a slightly more unstable version." At this point we recommend avoiding bank stocks and bank sector mutual funds until the smoke clears.
What to do
Maintaining your wealth in the future will require strategies that reflect this changed vision of global economic growth. Bond investors should confine purchases to shorter maturities where price protection is more probable and as inflation increases, cash from maturing notes can be reinvested at higher rates. Investors may experience lower rates of return than what they grew accustomed to until 2008. Returns are the result of an economic environment.
In light of this “new normal” reality, investors should look for stable income from a portion of their investments, rather than reaching for returns. Short-term bond ladders and income paying stocks are two good examples.
Also, there is a chance that the dollar will lose its reserve status. The U.S. simply has too much debt. To be ready for that day, investors should invest outside the U.S., in faster growth economies. In particular, the BRIC countries - Brazil, Russia, India and China, for instance, consumption in China is 35 percent of GDP compared to nearly 70 percent in the U.S.- that shows huge growth potential.
PIMCO’s co-CIO’s Gross and El-Erian sum things up succinctly with the following half dozen sentences. “For the next 3–5 years, we expect a world of muted growth, in the context of a continuing shift away from the G-3 [U.S., Japan and Europe] and toward the systemically important emerging economies, led by China. It is a world where the public sector overstays as a provider of goods that belong in the private sector.”
“The banking system will be a shadow of its former self. With regulation more expansive in form and reach, the sector will be de-risked, de-levered, and subject to greater burden sharing. The forces of consolidation and shrinkage will spread beyond banks, impacting a host of non-bank financial institutions as well as the investment management industry.”
“In the next few years, the historical pace of growth in potential output will face many headwinds. Excessive regulation, higher taxation, and government intervention will be among the factors that will constrain the growth.”
If the above holds true and you are paying your advisor 2 or 3 percent in total fees your portfolio may suffer needlessly, therefore think about lowering your costs. As John Bogle was recently quoted saying, “A financial system that takes too much out of investor returns doesn't create additional value. We want to beat the market but will inevitably fail because of [transaction] costs, so I question our values and what is really enough.”
Chris Blakely, June 2009
Sources: PIMCO, Bloomberg LP, JK Galbraith, John Bogle, Morningstar, Marketwatch.com, NBER
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Portfolio Management: Focus on the Future
Failures in Conventional Thinking
As we near the end of the first decade of the new millennium there are several new terms we use that rarely appeared in common conversation just 10 years ago, terms such as GPS, MP3, Blog, Plasma TV, Subprime and Stem Cells to name a few. All around our society, information describing our world expands at daunting rates and this explosion requires advancing analytics to make sense of it all. For most of the investment advisory business, portfolio building techniques and analyses sit in a conventional state lacking in thinking adapted to the world we know today.
Synonyms for diversification are words such as assortment, divergence, variety, and potpourri. In the in vestment business though, diversification has a very specific meaning: “A risk management technique that mixes a wide variety of investments within a portfolio. The rationale behind this technique contends that a portfolio of different kinds of investments will, on average, yield higher returns and pose a lower risk than any individual investment found within the portfolio. Diversification strives to smooth out unsystematic risk events in a portfolio so that the positive performance of some investments will neutralize the negative performance of others. Therefore, the benefits of diversification will hold only if the securities in the portfolio are not perfectly correlated.”
The notion of this specific diversification definition shows up on a wide variety of advisory websites under common concepts such as ”reduce the fluctuations”, “moving in the opposite direction”,” least amount of fluctuation”, “reduce the overall variability”, and smooth out the ups and downs.”
As we near the end of the first decade of the new millennium there are several new terms we use that rarely appeared in common conversation just 10 years ago, terms such as GPS, MP3, Blog, Plasma TV, Subprime and Stem Cells to name a few. All around our society, information describing our world expands at daunting rates and this explosion requires advancing analytics to make sense of it all. For most of the investment advisory business, portfolio building techniques and analyses sit in a conventional state lacking in thinking adapted to the world we know today.
Synonyms for diversification are words such as assortment, divergence, variety, and potpourri. In the in vestment business though, diversification has a very specific meaning: “A risk management technique that mixes a wide variety of investments within a portfolio. The rationale behind this technique contends that a portfolio of different kinds of investments will, on average, yield higher returns and pose a lower risk than any individual investment found within the portfolio. Diversification strives to smooth out unsystematic risk events in a portfolio so that the positive performance of some investments will neutralize the negative performance of others. Therefore, the benefits of diversification will hold only if the securities in the portfolio are not perfectly correlated.”
The notion of this specific diversification definition shows up on a wide variety of advisory websites under common concepts such as ”reduce the fluctuations”, “moving in the opposite direction”,” least amount of fluctuation”, “reduce the overall variability”, and smooth out the ups and downs.”
Truly, combining one asset class in the top quartile of the correlation continuum and one in the bottom quartile will smooth returns. However execution of this concept fails theory. Over time, asset classes have become highly correlated mathematically, defined as the top quartile in the correlation continuum – or correlation values of 0.5 to perfect correlation of 1.0.
Consider these facts:
* There are over 300 benchmarks correlated to the S&P 500 and average correlations have increased from 0.38 in 1996 to 0.63 in 2008 – an average solidly in the top quartile where little diversification exists.
* Bonds which used to be uncorrelated to U.S. stocks have moved from a negative correlation (-0.77) during the period from 1997-2002 to a positive correlation (0.68) during the time period 2002-2007.
* Corporate bonds which were clearly not correlated to all stocks10 years ago moved from -0.686 to a positive correlation over the last five years of 0.203.
Many investors have noticed the increased correlations of the capital markets. In a recent study of wealthy investors by PNC, the following quote appeared:
“The ultra wealthy likely are looking longer term, knowing that historically the stock market has advanced when interest rates are falling.”
Actually, investment theory says that a market that is good for bonds (falling interest rates due to recessionary pressure) is bad for stocks. In recent years though, it’s clear that the stock market benefits with interest rate declines and suffers with interest rate increases - to cool down an overheating economy. We also can see in the newspapers that global markets are highly integrated with our markets, reflected in a correlation of the MSCI EAFE (Europe, Australasia, and the Far East) index to the S&P 500 of 0.9 – remember 1.0 is perfectly correlated!
What we end up with is a portfolio built with the presumption of return diversification – smoothing returns over time – but in reality, a portfolio that delivers little real benefit.
Many advisors are quick to show reduced return and volatility factors using a mixture of asset classes. This is a bit of investment sleight of hand. Correlations reflect patterns of returns, the ups and downs of the market as shown in the chart below. High correlations between investments do not mean the actual returns are the same, just the pattern of returns. That does not mean investment diversification has been achieved. Think of it this way, varying the ingredients will make cakes look and taste different, but, in the end, you still have cake!
The world is flat and correlated
A successful portfolio funds your future needs or liabilities; anything short of this is a failure. It makes sense, then, that the portfolio must handle future events, not those of the past. Investment analysis uses past returns as the essential data for risk and return statistics. Consequently, the advisory business puts too much emphasis on past returns of funds and managers, when in fact it is subordinate.
Returns are the result of an economic environment. An economic environment has vast numbers of variables that play out in unpredictable ways, to this point, would anyone dispute that a single industry (banks) can alter an economy? A portfolio defined today must play out in the uncertainty that is the future.
Proper diversification weights the portfolio toward asset classes with the strength to handle the future.
Chris Blakely - May 2009
Sources: Dictionary.com, Investopedia.com, Bloomberg L.P., Investment News (12/14/2007)
Friday, March 20, 2009
What Goes Down Must Go Up
Confidence or Prozac
In his most recent article, Jeremy Grantham describes seemingly reasonable people, armed with terrifyingly accurate data, foretelling of the end of the world. Investors with lots of cash become inert objects, mired in cement, and too terrified to invest. Those investors who are fully invested move from fear to denial and finally to panic, at the end becoming catatonic.
Grantham encourages all investors, before rigor mortis sets in, to evaluate where they currently are, where they want to be, and how they can get there. A clear “battle plan”, developed by taking motivation from both your head and your stomach, he says, should clear the way for investors to overcome “investment paralysis”.
Elaine Garzarelli, formerly a Prudential analyst, called the market correctly in 1987, when shortly before the market crashed in October she put her clients into cash, where they stayed until the mid 1990’s, ultimately missing out on much of the rally in the stock market during the Clinton administration. She was only half right. In other words, you have to be right twice about something that no one knows with any certainty.
For those who are waiting for the tide to turn before they purchase stocks, remember that human nature is hard to overcome. For instance, you decide to invest when the market moves up 10 percent. That day comes, but you may decide, “is this rally groundless?” Therefore, you wait until the market moves up another 10 percent – just to be certain. At that point, you decide to wait for the market to pull back a bit and then buy because you’ve already missed 20 percent. As you wait for a better day the market advances another 20 percent and now with current investor psychology very bullish (a condition usually evidenced somewhere near the top of the market) you decide to jump back in having missed 40 percent of the market’s appreciation. Unfortunately, at every signpost, the future is no more predictable than it was at the last one.
What goes down must go up
“Though the path has not been smooth, our economic system has worked extraordinarily well over time. It has unleashed human potential as no other system has, and it will continue to do so. America’s best days lie ahead.” This quote by Warren Buffett from his letter to Berkshire Shareholders sums it up quite well. It is worth noting that since market records have been kept, stocks have outperformed every other investment category – including the period of the Great Depression, when they lost nearly 90 percent of their value!
If you have substantial cash you will need to (re)invest at some point. There is motivation to start now (confidence), as long as you are willing to risk the possibility of short-term declines in return for long-term profits. Remember, the future is not foreseeable and the fundamental goal of equity investing is to buy lower and sell higher. RKM has long advocated a strategy of buying into market declines, given that the biggest risk for many investors is to over-allocate to cash, missing upward movements in the market, which normally happens rapidly and abruptly.
Year of the Ox (aka Bull!) –coincidence?
We don’t know when the market will bottom. But whether it’s this month or December of this year, we are confident it will. It the meantime there is a strategy for the large cap equity portion of a portfolio that offers high current income with the potential for long-term appreciation. We suggest adding high quality equity/income funds or “dividend aristocrat stocks” to the portfolio, as this likely increases current income with appreciation potential. The S&P 500 dividend “aristocrats” are the 52 companies in the S&P 500 index that have followed a policy of consistently increasing dividends every year for at least 25 consecutive years. The current yield on several equity/income funds averages about 5 percent. That’s comparable to starting a 100 yard dash on the 50 yard mark, given that large cap stocks returned on average about 10 percent annually over the last 70 years. Investment income, whether from dividends or interest provides a cushion in down markets and many top-quality stocks have higher yields than the 30-year Treasury and better appreciation potential.
Grantham calculates the “fair value” of the S&P500 at 900, approximately 30% above where the index sits now. Although he believes that the index has a 50/50% chance of dropping below 600, many stocks and funds will have posted a double digit return per year above inflation for the next seven years. This might not be the absolute bottom of the market, but it is so close to a bottom, prudent investors are now investing.
Christopher Blakely 03/2009
Sources: The Wall Street Journal; Bloomberg LP, GMO North America
In his most recent article, Jeremy Grantham describes seemingly reasonable people, armed with terrifyingly accurate data, foretelling of the end of the world. Investors with lots of cash become inert objects, mired in cement, and too terrified to invest. Those investors who are fully invested move from fear to denial and finally to panic, at the end becoming catatonic.
Grantham encourages all investors, before rigor mortis sets in, to evaluate where they currently are, where they want to be, and how they can get there. A clear “battle plan”, developed by taking motivation from both your head and your stomach, he says, should clear the way for investors to overcome “investment paralysis”.
Elaine Garzarelli, formerly a Prudential analyst, called the market correctly in 1987, when shortly before the market crashed in October she put her clients into cash, where they stayed until the mid 1990’s, ultimately missing out on much of the rally in the stock market during the Clinton administration. She was only half right. In other words, you have to be right twice about something that no one knows with any certainty.
For those who are waiting for the tide to turn before they purchase stocks, remember that human nature is hard to overcome. For instance, you decide to invest when the market moves up 10 percent. That day comes, but you may decide, “is this rally groundless?” Therefore, you wait until the market moves up another 10 percent – just to be certain. At that point, you decide to wait for the market to pull back a bit and then buy because you’ve already missed 20 percent. As you wait for a better day the market advances another 20 percent and now with current investor psychology very bullish (a condition usually evidenced somewhere near the top of the market) you decide to jump back in having missed 40 percent of the market’s appreciation. Unfortunately, at every signpost, the future is no more predictable than it was at the last one.
What goes down must go up
“Though the path has not been smooth, our economic system has worked extraordinarily well over time. It has unleashed human potential as no other system has, and it will continue to do so. America’s best days lie ahead.” This quote by Warren Buffett from his letter to Berkshire Shareholders sums it up quite well. It is worth noting that since market records have been kept, stocks have outperformed every other investment category – including the period of the Great Depression, when they lost nearly 90 percent of their value!
If you have substantial cash you will need to (re)invest at some point. There is motivation to start now (confidence), as long as you are willing to risk the possibility of short-term declines in return for long-term profits. Remember, the future is not foreseeable and the fundamental goal of equity investing is to buy lower and sell higher. RKM has long advocated a strategy of buying into market declines, given that the biggest risk for many investors is to over-allocate to cash, missing upward movements in the market, which normally happens rapidly and abruptly.
Year of the Ox (aka Bull!) –coincidence?
We don’t know when the market will bottom. But whether it’s this month or December of this year, we are confident it will. It the meantime there is a strategy for the large cap equity portion of a portfolio that offers high current income with the potential for long-term appreciation. We suggest adding high quality equity/income funds or “dividend aristocrat stocks” to the portfolio, as this likely increases current income with appreciation potential. The S&P 500 dividend “aristocrats” are the 52 companies in the S&P 500 index that have followed a policy of consistently increasing dividends every year for at least 25 consecutive years. The current yield on several equity/income funds averages about 5 percent. That’s comparable to starting a 100 yard dash on the 50 yard mark, given that large cap stocks returned on average about 10 percent annually over the last 70 years. Investment income, whether from dividends or interest provides a cushion in down markets and many top-quality stocks have higher yields than the 30-year Treasury and better appreciation potential.
Grantham calculates the “fair value” of the S&P500 at 900, approximately 30% above where the index sits now. Although he believes that the index has a 50/50% chance of dropping below 600, many stocks and funds will have posted a double digit return per year above inflation for the next seven years. This might not be the absolute bottom of the market, but it is so close to a bottom, prudent investors are now investing.
Christopher Blakely 03/2009
Sources: The Wall Street Journal; Bloomberg LP, GMO North America
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Equity Investment Thoughts February 2009
Graham’s premise (which he did not abandon even during the great depression) was that sooner or later the markets will reflect underlying corporate valuations. Therefore, long-term investors had a “basic advantage” over other investors, because they could ride out the tough markets rather than be panicked into buying or selling.
While stock markets periodically make dramatic swings up and down the earning power of the U.S. economy endures (with fluctuations). As Roger Lowenstein phrased it recently in the New York Times Magazine, “The people who chased unrealistic returns at the top, like those who are selling now, have simply cashiered their “advantage” to play a game that more nearly resembles Bernie Madoff’s.”
Therefore, it is with a heightened sense of perspective that we review the recent past and share our investment view for the future.
Great Depression II? We think not. The U.S. economy is experiencing what appears to be its deepest secular recession since the mid 1970’s and it may take a few more quarters for the economy and consumers to deleverage and turn the supertanker that is our economy around. In spite of this there are some bright spots for the upcoming year:
> The corporate sector is in relatively good shape with low debt and inventories
> Energy prices are down significantly with gasoline prices cut in half, now that the speculators are out of the market (good for consumer confidence and boosts disposable income)
> When aggregate demand for goods is insufficient, the solution is for the government to provide demand when the private sector will not – JM Keynes and Paul Samuelson (Recently signed into law by the new administration.)
Although stocks may weaken a bit further, for the long-term investor, many stocks are priced to deliver attractive returns. The ValueLine Survey estimates the appreciation potential of the broad market to be over 25 percent annually on average for the next five years. The current S&P 500 price to earnings ratio, commonly referred to as the P/E ratio, is currently just over 11X, while the P/E ratio of the S&P 500 over the last 25 years has been about 18X earnings. Therefore, if appropriate with your investment objectives take advantage of the relatively inexpensive stock market. We suggest adding high quality, dividend paying stocks or low cost, no load funds with that objective. The current yield on these funds averages about 5 percent, it’s like starting a 100 yard dash on the 50 yard mark, given that large cap stocks returned on average about 10 percent annually over the last 70 years. Investment income, whether from dividends or interest provides a cushion in down markets and many top-quality stocks have higher yields than the 30-year Treasury and appreciation potential.
Christopher Blakely
Sources: Goldman Sachs, Standard & Poor’s, The New York Times, Bloomberg LP, ValueLine
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)