• Purpose of This Blog and Information about the Author

Latticework Wealth Management, LLC

~ Information for Individual Investors

Latticework Wealth Management, LLC

Category Archives: investing, investments, stocks, bonds, asset allocation, portfolio

Before You Take Any Investment Advice, Consider the Source – Version 2.0

18 Wednesday Sep 2019

Posted by wmosconi in asset allocation, Average Returns, behavioral finance, bonds, Charlie Munger, confirmation bias, Consumer Finance, emerging markets, Fama, finance, financial advice, Financial Advisor, financial goals, financial markets, Financial Media, Financial News, financial planning, financial services industry, Geometric Returns, Individual Investing, individual investors, interest rates, Internet Bubble, investing, investing advice, investing, investments, stocks, bonds, asset allocation, portfolio, investment advice, investments, Markowitz, Modern Portfolio Theory, MPT, personal finance, portfolio, risk, risk tolerance, stock market, Stock Market Returns, Stock Market Valuation, stock prices, stocks, Uncategorized, Valuation, volatility, Warren Buffett

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

academics, anchoring, behavioral economics, behavioral finance, Ben Graham, Bill Ruane, Capital Asset Pricing Model, CAPM, Charlie Munger, cognitive bias, Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits, David Dodd, economics, economy, Efficient Market Hypothesis, EMT, finance, invest, investing, investments, mathematics, Modern Portfolio Theory, MPT, performance, Phil Fisher, portfolio, portfolio management, Security Analysis, stocks, uncertainty, Warren Buffett

I originally wrote about this topic five years ago.  However, I think that it may even be more relevant today.  You may have heard about behavioral finance/economics and how cognitive biases plagued individual investors when making financial and investing decisions especially during volatility times in the financial markets.

Sometimes an overlooked topic is the fact that whomever provides you with financial advice will invariably be affected by those same biases.  Yes, even the professionals cannot escape them.  One of the most prevalent and insidious cognitive biases is called “anchoring”.

In layman’s terms, “anchoring” describes the tendency of people to form a particular belief and then stick with it unless there is an incredible amount of evidence to the contrary.  It is just part of human nature; we generally do not want to admit that we were mistaken or flat out wrong.

Now when I am talking about considering the source, I am not referring to the person’s qualifications such as having a Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA), Certified Financial Planner (CFP), or Chartered Market Technician (CMT) designation.  I am referring to the person’s investing paradigm. 

For the most part, financial professionals are influenced greatly by the time period in which they first start out in the financial services industry.  The first several of years have an outsized impact on their investing recommendations throughout the rest of their careers. 

I will give you an example in life, and then I will talk about Warren Buffett and even myself.  Take special note that I am including myself in this “anchoring” cognitive bias within the context of investing.

There have been many studies that show that the kind of music you listen to most during your teen years becomes your preferred type of music.  For example, there are many people in their early 40’s that love 80’s rock.  They would prefer to listen to that over any type of new music.  My parents are in their seventies now, and they love to listen to Peter, Paul, & Mary, the Beach Boys, Neil Diamond, Motown, and lots of one-hit wonders from the 50’s and 60’s. 

Think about your own taste in music.  Does this ring a bell?  Most people fall into this category, and it is almost subconscious.  You like a certain genre of music best, and it sticks with you.  Did you have a family member that was really into music and had a collection of records?  Sometimes you get introduced to music at an even younger age, and you are drawn to it.  You listened to it during your formative years.  The same goes for investing in a rather similar way.

If we take a look at Warren Buffett, he was definitely influenced by the time period in which he started learning about investing seriously.  Buffett read Security Analysis by Benjamin Graham and David Dodd, and he knew right away that he wanted to go to Columbia to get his MS in Economics.  The themes in the book seemed to resonate with him.  I have heard stories that the value investing class with Ben Graham and Warren Buffett was really a conversation between the two of them.  The rest of the classmates just sat back and enjoyed the “show”. 

Warren Buffett also learned a lot from a lesser known gentleman, Phil Fisher.  Phil Fisher wrote the classic treatise on “scuttlebutt” called Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits.  “Scuttlebutt” is essentially trying to gain every last piece of information you can about a company prior to investing.  This technique includes, not only speaking to management and reading annual reports, but talking to competitors, suppliers, current employees, past employees, and several other sources.

Warren Buffett remarked in the past that he was “15% Fisher and 85% Graham” in terms of his investing style.  Most experts on the career of Buffett would say that the percentage has shifted toward Fisher quite a bit, especially with the massive size of Berkshire Hathaway now.

I did not pick Warren Buffett because of his long-term track record of stellar performance.  I only picked him because many individuals are familiar with Warren Buffett.  Warren started out working for Graham in the early 50’s after he graduated from Columbia in 1951.  If you look back at this time in history, the stock market had finally gained back its losses from the great crash of October 1929.  The baby boom was in full swing, and the US economy was on overdrive in terms of growth.  The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) was set up back in 1933 after the crash once an investigation was done regarding the causes of this debacle. 

There were two important promulgations from the SEC in 1934 and 1940 that were issued in order to ensure that company information was available to the public and not fraudulent.  Well, there were still scams, but they were harder to pull off.  (As an aside, the Investment Advisor Act of 1940 did not stop Bernie Madoff from stealing billions of dollars several years ago).  Buffett and Graham (and Graham’s partner, Newman) loved to get their hands on any piece of information they could.  In fact, Buffett used to read entire books on every single public company. 

During that time period, information was so disjointed and hard to get.  However, it was now available to the public and professional investors who could do much more thorough analyses.  The financial markets had far more inefficiencies back then. 

This time period was before the dawn of Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT), the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM), and the Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMT).  Thus, there was a great deal of opportunities for individuals like Buffett who soaked up all the information he could find.

Buffett started his own investment partnership in the mid 50’s.  It was essentially a hedge fund in most respects.  Without getting into too much of the details, Buffett was able to earn 20% more on average than the Down Jones Average annually until 1969.  The stock market at this time seemed to be overpriced in his estimation, so Buffett disbanded the partnership.  He referred his partners to Bill Ruane of the famed Sequoia Fund.  Bill was a former classmate of Warren, and he amassed quite a record himself.

So if we look at Buffett’s beginning career, he saw how doing your homework really paid off.  In fact, there are even stories that Ben Graham would use examples in his lectures about companies he was going to buy.  After class let out, all the students rushed to call, or see directly, their stock brokers to buy the companies Graham presented on. 

Buffett learned from Graham the importance of valuing a company based upon verifiable evidence and not market sentiment.  Fisher’s lessons showed him the benefit of accumulating information from different sources in order to truly understand a business prior to investing.  These formative years are still with Buffett. 

Now Charlie Munger, Buffett’s Vice Chairman at Berkshire Hathaway, has been an influence as well.  What is little known is that they grew up together in Omaha, Nebraska, and they were able to meet during this same time period.  This introduction to investing left an indelible mark on Warren Buffett that permeates his investing career today.

Obviously I am no Warren Buffett, but I started investing in mutual funds at age 13 in November 1987.  What got me so interested in the stock market?  Obviously Black Monday on October 19, 1987 really caught my attention.  It was not really the crash that really piqued my interest though.  My father told me that the market drop of 508 points on that day was an overreaction (down over 20% amazed me).  I did not know much about stocks, but it seemed to me like the world was ending.  At least that was how the nightly news portrayed things.  My father said watch the market over the next several days. 

To my absolute amazement, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) went up almost 290 points in the next two trading sessions.  Wow!  This turn of events was really weird to me.  How could stocks move around in value so greatly?

I thought that all the big money investors in the stock market really knew what they were doing.  However, most everyone was caught by surprise by Black Monday.  The other interesting thing for me was that 1987 turned out to be a positive year for the DJIA.  If you want to get your friend’s attention, you can ask them what the return of the DJIA was for 1987 (positive return) and 1988 (negative return).  Most people will get it wrong.

Well, these events left a mark on me.  When I learned more about investing and was exposed to Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT) and the Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMT), I really did not think it was true given my start in investing back in the latter portion of 1987.  How could the value of the entire U.S. economy be worth 20% less after one day of trading? 

Now, the stock market is normally efficient and stock prices are correct, but I knew that there were inflection points in the stock market where rationality was thrown out the door.  Therefore, when I learned about Mr. Market and the vicissitudes and vagaries of the stock market from Ben Graham’s books, I liked that metaphor and way to characterize volatility in the stock market. 

For better or worse, I really do not care for the academic, ivory tower analysis of behavior in the stock market.  I cling more to focus investing, value investing, and seeing the financial markets as complex adaptive systems.  I would fall into the camp of Warren Buffett and the great hedge fund investor, George Soros.  Both men have said that they would never be able to pass the Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) exam. 

The CFA is now the standard designation for all portfolio managers of stocks and bonds.  I tried studying for it, but a lot of it made little sense to me.  I guess that is why I think it is funny when Buffett says he wants to gift money to universities to install permanent chairs in business schools to teach Modern Portfolio Theory forever.

Most of the financial professionals you meet will range in age from twenties to sixties.  You should always ask them when they started investing or their career as a Financial Advisor.  Here are the ten major events that will cover those individuals:

  • The 1973-1974 severe bear market;
  • The Death of Equities article from Business Week magazine in 1979;
  • Black Monday in October 1987;
  • The Bond Bubble Bursting in 1994;
  • The Asian Contagion and Long Term Capital Management (LTCM) incidents in 1997-1998;
  • The Barron’s article in December 1999 that questioned the relevance of the Oracle of Omaha, Warren Buffett;
  • The Bursting of the Internet Bubble in April 2001;
  • The Financial Crisis and ensuing Great Recession of 2008-2009;
  • The “Lost Decade” of Returns from the S&P 500 from 2001-2010 when stocks averaged approximately 2% annually.
  • Managing Money is Easy. Look at my investing record over the past 10 years (2009-2018).  Note that the annualized return of the S&P 500 index over that period was 13.13%.

These major inflection points in the financial markets will have a great effect on your financial professional’s recommendations for investment portfolio allocation.  In fact, I met a Financial Advisor that tells his clients that they can expect to earn 12% annually from stocks over the long term.  He uses this return for modeling how much clients need to invest for retirement.  He was introduced to investing around 1996 which is when the stock market went gangbusters. 

I know another Financial Advisor that tells his clients to never put more than 50% of their money in common stocks.  He tells this to all of his clients, even if they are in their thirties and have 30+ years until retirement.  He started advising clients in 2007, and he lost a great many clients in 2008.  Therefore, he wants to have limited downside risk for two reasons. 

First, he has seen how much the stock market can drop in one year.  Second, this gentleman wants to ensure that his clients do not close accounts and flee to other financial professionals because the stocks in their portfolio go down 30-40% in a single year.

The importance today of the long, extended bull market of the past 10 years is extremely important to take into account for all individual investors.  A recent stretch of 13.13% annualized stock returns makes it seem that investing systematically over the long term is the correct investment strategy.  I would not disagree with that thought. 

However, Financial Advisors with 10 years of experience or less will only tell clients what they would do hypothetically in the event of a major market decline in the stock and bond markets.  Hypotheticals and backtesting are all well and good. 

But it has been my experience, that there is no substitute for actually investing during periods of extreme volatility and major stock market declines (20% or more).  For example, what was the best stock investment strategy right after the Internet Bubble implosion in terms of the asset class?  The best performing asset class for the next decade was to have a larger than normal allocation to emerging market stocks (think Ticker Symbol EEM or VWO).  Do you think that your Financial Advisor would have the stomach to recommend this investment to you after seeing the NASDAQ index fall by over 50%?

As you can see, the start of anyone’s investing career has an impact on their outlook for the financial markets and how to set up a portfolio properly.  I am not saying that any of this advice is “wrong” per se. 

My only point is that you need to probe your Financial Advisor a little bit to understand the framework he/she is working with.  Thus, you can refer to the aforementioned list of ten major events in the history of the financial markets.  These events really shape the investment paradigm of all of us.  And, of course, I will admit that I am no different.

With that being said, most investment strategies recommended by Financial Advisors are borne out of those individuals first few years with the financial markets.  Some financial professionals are more bullish than others.  Others focus on downside risk and limiting volatility in investment portfolios.  Still others utilize complicated mathematics to build investment portfolios that are optimized. 

Therefore, you need to understand your risk tolerance and financial goals very well.  You have your own personal experience with the market.  If your Financial Advisor is somewhat myopic and focused on the past repeating itself in the same way over and over, you need to be careful. 

History does repeat itself, but the repeating events will be caused by much different factors in most cases.  Unfortunately, the financial markets and market participants are always adapting to changing investment strategies, global economic GDP growth, interest rates, geopolitical events, stock price volatility, and a whole host of other things. 

You can learn from the past, but I urge you not to be “stuck” in the past with your Financial Advisor’s “anchoring” cognitive bias at the expense of setting up an investment portfolio that will allow you to reach your financial goals and match your risk tolerance.

A New Paradigm for Investing on 50 year-old Investment Advice Available on Amazon.com

01 Saturday Mar 2014

Posted by wmosconi in asset allocation, beta, business, Consumer Finance, Education, Fama, finance, financial planning, Free Book Promotion, Individual Investing, investing, investing, investments, stocks, bonds, asset allocation, portfolio, investment advisory fees, investments, Markowitz, math, Modern Portfolio Theory, MPT, passive investing, personal finance, portfolio, risk, Sharpe, sigma, statistics, stock prices, stocks, volatility

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Amazon.com, business, economics, education, FA, finance, Financial Advisors, free books, individual investing, investing, investment advice, investments, mathematics, Modern Portfolio Theory, MPT, personal finance, statistics

I have decided to make my recently published book FREE for today only, March 1, 2014(it normally retails for $4.99).  The book is another installment in my A New Paradigm for Investing series.  In this particular book, I focus on the use of Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT) as the primary tool by Financial Advisors to recommend portfolio allocations.  The theory is over 50 years old, and most of its assumptions have been shown to be less and less useful.  I explore the reasons why in my text.  I have tried to write in such a manner that you do not need a degree in mathematics or statistics to understand its contents.  Moreover, you do not need to know about the intricacies of MPT in order to follow my logic.  You would find the same information in a college textbook but in a condensed format here.  It actually is quite surprising how little Financial Advisors know about MPT in general and how the ideas apply to individual investors.

Note that this book is available for download onto a Kindle.  Additionally, there is a Kindle app for iPhones and Android devices which is free to download.  Amazon.com Prime Members can borrow the book for FREE as well. I have provided a link below to make it easier.   My email address is latticeworkwealth@gmail.com should you have any questions/comments/feedback.

The book is:

1)      A New Paradigm for Investing:  Is Your Financial Advisor Creating Your Portfolio with a 50 Year-Old Theory?:

http://www.amazon.com/New-Paradigm-Investing-Financial-ebook/dp/B00FQQ0CKG/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1381520643&sr=1-1&keywords=a+New+paradigm+for+investing+by+William+Nelson

I would like to thank my international viewers as well of my blog that can be found at https://latticeworkwealth.com/.  I also wanted to especially thank some selected followers of my @NelsonThought and @LatticeworkWlth Twitter accounts (each of whom I would strongly recommend following for their content and insight):

Followers on @NelsonThought:

–  The Wall Street Journal Wealth Report @WSJwealthreport – #wsjexperts

–  Institutional Investor @iimag

–  The Royce Funds @RoyceFunds – Small Cap value investing asset manager

–  Research Magazine @Research_Mag – Latest industry information for wirehouses and ETFs

–  Barron’s Online @BarronsOnline – Weekly financial news magazine of Dow Jones

–  Cleveland Fed Research @ClevFedResearch

–  Euromoney.com @Euromoney

–  Pedro da Costa @pdacosta – Central banking and economics reporter at The Wall Street Journal

–  Muriel Siebert & Co. @SiebertCo

–  Roger Wohlner, CFP® @rwohlner

–  Ed Moldaver @emoldaver

–  Sylvia Maxfield @sylviamaxfield – Dean of the Providence College of Business

–  The Shut Up Show @theshutupshow

–  Berni Xiong (shUNG) @BerniXiong

Followers on @LatticeworkWlth:

–  Tracy Alloway @tracyalloway – US Financial Correspondent at Financial Times

–  Vanguard FA @Vanguard_FA – Vanguard’s ETF research and education

–  EU External Action @eu_eeas – Latest news from the European External Action Service (EEAS)

–  Direxion Alts @DirexionAlts

–  Charlie Wells @charliewwells – Editor at The Wall Street Journal

–  Jesse Colombo @TheBubbleBubble – Columnist at Forbes

–  Alastair Winter @AlastairWinter – Chief Economist at Daniel Stewart & Company

–  AbsoluteVerification @GIPStips

–  Investment Advisor @InvestAdvMag

–  Gary Oneil @GaryONeil2

–  MJ Gottlieb @MJGottlieb

–  Bob Burg @BobBurg

–  TheMichaelBrown @TheMichaelBrown

–  Phil Gerbyshak @PhilGerbyshak

– MuniCredit @MuniCredit

What is the 800-Pound Gorilla in the Room for Retirees? It is 12.5.

26 Wednesday Feb 2014

Posted by wmosconi in active investing, active versus passive debate, asset allocation, bonds, business, Education, Fiduciary, finance, financial advisor fees, financial planning, Individual Investing, investing, investing, investments, stocks, bonds, asset allocation, portfolio, investment advisory fees, investments, math, passive investing, personal finance, portfolio, risk, stocks, volatility

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

bonds, business, Certified Financial Planners, CFP, finance, Financial Advsiors, financial planning, individual investing, investment advisory fees, investments, personal finance, Registered Investment Advisors, retirement, RIA, stocks, volatility

The 12.5 I am referring to is 12.5%, and it relates to investment advisory fees.  I have discussed the effects of investment advisory fees at length in previous posts.  In general, most individual investors pay fees to financial services firms that are too high in comparison to the value provided in many cases.  For example, the vast majority of individual investors do not need complex, strategic tax planning, estate planning and legal advice, or sophistical financial planning.  However, the firms that most people invest with offer those services within the fee structure.  There is very little in the way of options to select a larger wealth management firm that will provide only asset allocation advice at a reduced fee because the individual investor does not need the other services when it comes to tax, legal, and sophisticated financial planning.  I wrote an article several months ago in regard to how you can look at the value added by your financial professional.  It is worth a review in terms of what he/she can do for you that you cannot simply do yourself using a passive investing strategy.  Here is the link:

https://latticeworkwealth.com/2013/10/26/are-your-financial-advisors-fees-reasonable-are-you-actually-adding-more-risk-to-your-ability-to-reach-your-long-term-financial-goals-here-is-a-unique-way-to-look-at-what-clients-pay-for/

I would like to focus on a different way of looking at investment advisory fees.  My primary focus will be on retirees; however, the logic directly applies to those in the wealth accumulation phase of life trying to save for retirement.  As I have mentioned previously, the standard fee for investment advisory services is normally 1% of assets under management (AUM).  This structure simply means that an individual investor pays $1 in fees for every $100 invested.  Another way to look at it is that you will pay $10,000 annually if your account balance is $1,000,000 ($1,000,000 * 1%).  I would like to go through an illustration to show what this means in terms of your investment performance, overall risk profile, and the ability to reach your long-term financial goals.

Most individual investors do not write out a check to their financial professional.  Rather, they have the investment advisory fees paid out of the investment returns in their portfolios.  My example does not make any difference how you pay your fees, but it can be somewhat hidden if you are not writing out a check.  The fees just appear as a line item on your daily activity section of your brokerage statement; most investors skim over it.  In order to make the mathematics easier to follow, I am going to use a retiree with a $1,000,000 account balance and a 1% AUM fee annually.  My entire argument applies no matter what your account balance is or your AUM fee.  You just need to insert your personal account balance and AUM fee which may be higher or lower.  So let’s get started.

In my hypothetical scenario of a $1,000,000 portfolio subject to a 1% AUM fee, this retiree will have to pay $10,000 to his/her financial professional for investment advisory services rendered.  Well, we can look at this fee from the standpoint of the portfolio as a whole in terms of investment performance necessary to pay that fee.  The portfolio will need to increase by at least 1% to pay the fee in full.  Now most financial professionals will tell clients that they can expect to earn 8% per year by investing in stocks.  So using that figure (which is close to the historical average), we can get to the fee by allocating $125,000 of the overall portfolio to stocks in order to increase the portfolio on average by 8% to be able to pay the $10,000 fee ($125,000 * 8% = $10,000).

What does that mean in terms of your overall portfolio allocation to stocks?  You can imagine that, whatever your total allocation to stocks is, 12.5% of that amount is invested simply to pay fees.  For example, if you are just starting out in retirement at age 65 and have 60% allocated to stocks, 12.5% of the expected return (8%) from stocks in your total  portfolio will go to pay your annual investment advisory fees and 47.5% of the expected return (8%) from stocks in your total portfolio will add to your account balance. 

The math works out this way:  $1,000,000 * 60% = $600,000 // $600,000 (invested in stocks) * 8% (expected return from stocks) = $48,000 // $48,000 – $10,000 (AUM fee at 1%) = $38,000.  An alternative way to do the math is to take the total allocation to stocks and subtract the necessary allocation to stocks to pay the AUM fee, and that result is the investment return for the year that remains in your account balance which is $38,000 (So take 60.0% – 12.5% = 47.5% // $1,000,000 * 47.5% * 8% = $38,000).

The paragraph above has major impacts for your portfolio.  Firstly, it illustrates how much additional risk you are taking on in your portfolio as a whole.  In order to breakeven net of fees, you need to invest 12.5% of your portfolio into stocks.  Retirees are in the wealth distribution phase of life, and most are living off the investment account earnings (capital gains, dividends, and interest) and principal.  Since retirees have no income from working and will not be making any additional contributions, they are impacted greater than other investors in the way of volatility.  Stocks are more volatile investments than bonds but offer the promise of higher returns.  It is the simple risk/reward tradeoff.  Second, it shows that the higher the fees for retirees the more vulnerable they are to volatility as a whole.  Since retirees need to withdraw money on a consistent/systematic basis, a higher allocation of their portfolio to riskier investments are more vulnerable than other investors that have longer timeframes prior to retirement (wealth accumulation phase). If there are major downturns in the stock market, retirees still have to withdraw from their accounts in order to pay living expenses.  They do not have the luxury of not selling.  Yes, a retiree could sell bonds instead of stocks but then the allocation of stocks has to rise by definition as a percentage of the entire portfolio.

There is a way to rethink the investment strategy for a retiree.  In today’s investing environment, there are many more investment offerings that offer financial products at much lower expenses than traditional active mutual fund managers.  These include ETFs and index mutual funds.  The expenses typically are less than 0.20% (in fact, most are significantly lower than this).  Additionally, there has been the proliferation of independent Registered Investment Advisors (RIAs) and Certified Financial Planners (CFPs) over the past 10-15 years who charge fee-only (hourly) or flat fee.  Most of these financial professionals charge significantly lower fees than the traditional 1% AUM fee.  In fact, it is possible to cut your fees by 50% at least.  Now the flipside may be that you might not have the ability to consult with some about certain sophisticated tax, legal/estate, and financial planning strategies.  However, most retirees do not need that advice to begin with.  The average retiree only needs a sound asset allocation of his/her investment portfolio given his/her risk tolerance and financial goals.  To learn more about independent RIAs and CFPs, I have included these links:

1)       RIA – http://www.riastandsforyou.com/benefits-of-an-ria.html

 

2)      CFP – http://www.plannersearch.org/why-cfp/Pages/Why-Hire-a-Certified-Financial-Planner.aspx

The main benefit in terms of reducing fees is not only that the retiree keeps more money, but, more importantly, he/she can reduce the overall risk of the portfolio.  Let’s go back to our hypothetical example of a retiree with a $1,000,000 who is charged a 1% AUM fee or $10,000 per year.  If the total investment advisory fees are reduced by 50%, the total annual fee is 0.5% or $5,000 per year.  What does this mean?  In our first example, the retiree had to allocate 12.5% of his/her portfolio of stocks to pay the $10,000 annual AUM fee (assuming an 8% expected return).  If the fees are 50% less, the retiree now only has to allocate 6.25% of the portfolio to stocks in order to pay the annual investment advisory fees ($1,000,000 * 6.25% = $62,500 // $62,500 * 8% = $5,000).

Now if we go back to the longer example of a simple 60% stock and 40% bond portfolio, the retiree in this case is able to invest 53.75% in stocks and 46.25% in bonds and still pay the annual investment advisory fees.  The math is as follows:  ($1,000,000 * 53.75% = $537,500 // $537,500 * 8% = $43,000 // $43,000 – $5,000 new annual fees = $38,000).  You will note that the retiree has $38,000 in his/her portfolio after the annual fees are paid out.  This dollar amount is equal to the other hypothetical retiree who had to pay a 1% AUM fee.  The example illustrates that both investors have the same expected increase to their portfolio but the retiree with the lower fees is able to get to that figure with a portfolio that is less risky because he/she is able to allocate 6.25% less to stocks.

Another way to look at this scenario is that the retiree in the second case with 50% lower fees could have alternatively chosen to reduce his/her stock allocation by 5%.  For example, the retiree could have started with a portfolio allocation of 55% instead of using the 53.75% stock allocation.  In this example, the retiree would have an expected return after fees that is $1,000 higher than the retiree from the first example and take less risk.  The math is as follows:  ($1,000,000 * 55% = $550,000 // $550,000 * 8% = $44,000 // $44,000 – $5,000 = $39,000 // $39,000 – $38,000 = $1,000).  The retiree in this example would have a higher expected return from his/her entire portfolio of 0.1%.  While this figure might not sound like much, the more important point is that this return is achieved with less risk (only 55% allocation to stocks versus a 60% allocation to stocks).

A financial professional might argue that he/she is able to create an asset allocation model for an average retiree that will end up having investment returns higher than that recommended by the independent RIA or CFP.  Of course, this might be the case.  However, in order to have the retiree be indifferent between the two scenarios, the portfolio recommended by the financial professional charging a 1% AUM fee must be able to return 0.5% more annually at an absolute minimum.  Now this does not even consider the riskiness of the retiree’s portfolio.  In order to have a portfolio earn an additional 0.5% per year, the client will have to accept investing in riskier asset classes.  Therefore, given the additional risk, the retiree should require even more than an additional 0.5% overall return to compensate him/her for the potential for higher volatility.

As you can see, the level of fees makes a big difference.  The more you are able to cut the fees on your retirement account (and any account for that matter) the less risky your portfolio can be positioned.  In the aforementioned example, the overall reduction in the exposure to stocks can be a maximum of 12.5% to stocks.  Now the average retiree will most likely not want to forgo any investment advice from a financial professional.  However, in the case of person able to lower his/her investment fees by 50%, he/she was able to reduce his/her investments in stocks by 6.25% (12.5% * 50%).  In fact, you can figure out the possible reduction in exposure to stocks by multiplying the 12.5% by the reduction in fees you are able to achieve.  For example, let’s say that you are able to reduce your investment fees by 70%.  You would be able to reduce your allocation to stocks by 8.7% (12.5% * 70%).

The entire point of this article is to show you how you can be able to reduce the volatility in your portfolio and not sacrifice overall investment returns.  If investing in stocks during your retirement years makes you nervous, this methodology can be used to help you sleep better at night because you have less total money of your entire retirement savings allocated to stocks.  However, you are not sacrificing investment returns.  Always remember that in the world of investment advisory fees, it truly is a “zero sum game”.  All this means is that the investment advisory fees are reducing your net investment portfolio gains.  The gain in the value of your portfolio either goes to you or your financial professional.  The more you learn about how investment advisory fees, the types of financial professionals available to advise you offering different fee schedules, and how the financial markets work, the more gains you will keep in your portfolio.

A New Paradigm for Investing on 50 year-old Investment Advice Available on Amazon.com

03 Tuesday Dec 2013

Posted by wmosconi in alpha, asset allocation, Bernanke, beta, bonds, business, Consumer Finance, Education, Fama, Fed, Fed Taper, Fed Tapering, Federal Reserve, finance, financial advisor fees, financial planning, Individual Investing, investing, investing, investments, stocks, bonds, asset allocation, portfolio, investment advisory fees, investments, Markowitz, math, Modern Portfolio Theory, MPT, Nobel Prize, Nobel Prize in Economics, portfolio, rising interest rate environment, rising interest rates, risk, Schiller, Sharpe, sigma, statistics, stock prices, stocks, volatility, Yellen

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

alpha, asset allocation, Bernanke, beta, bonds, business, consumer finance, economics, education, Fama, Fed, Fed taper, Fed Tapering, Federal Reserve, finance, investing, investments, math, Modern Portfolio Theory, MPT, Nobel Prize, Nobel Prize in Economics, personal finance, portfolio, portfolio management, Schiller, Shiller, statistics, stocks, volatility, Yellen

I am happy to announce that I have published another book on Amazon.com.  I have decided to make it FREE for the rest of the week through Saturday, December 7th (it normally retails for $4.99).  The book is another installment in my A New Paradigm for Investing series.  In this particular book, I focus on the use of Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT) as the primary tool by Financial Advisors to recommend portfolio allocations.  The theory is over 50 years old, and most of its assumptions have been shown to be less and less useful.  I explore the reasons why in my text.  I have tried to write in such a manner that you do not need a degree in mathematics or statistics to understand its contents.  Futhermore, you do not need to know about the intricacies of MPT in order to follow my logic.  You would find the same information in a college textbook but in a condensed format.

Note that this book is available for download onto a Kindle.  Additionally, there is a Kindle app for iPhones and Android devices which is free to download.  Amazon.com prime members can borrow the book for FREE. I have provided a link below to make it easier.   My email address is latticeworkwealth@gmail.com should you have any questions/comments/feedback.

The book is:

1)      A New Paradigm for Investing:  Is Your Financial Advisor Creating Your Portfolio with a 50 Year-Old Theory?:

http://www.amazon.com/New-Paradigm-Investing-Financial-ebook/dp/B00FQQ0CKG/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1381520643&sr=1-1&keywords=a+New+paradigm+for+investing+by+William+Nelson

I would like to thank my international viewers as well.  I also wanted to especially thank some selected followers of my @NelsonThought and @LatticeworkWlth Twitter accounts (each of whom I would recommend following for the content and insight):

Followers on @NelsonThought:

The Wealth Report @wsjexperts – Wall Street Journal #wsjexperts

The Royce Funds @RoyceFunds

Research Magazine @Research_Mag

Barron’s Online @BarronsOnline

Vanguard FA @Vanguard_FA

Cleveland Fed Research @ClevFedResearch

Pedro da Costa @pdacosta

Muriel Siebert & Co. @SiebertCo

Roger Wohlner, CFP® @rwohlner

Ed Moldaver @emoldaver

Sylvia Maxfield @sylviamaxfield

The Shut Up Show @theshutupshow

Berni Xiong (shUNG) @BerniXiong

Followers on @LatticeworkWlth:

Euro-banks @EuroBanks

Direxion Alts @DirexionAlts

Charlie Wells @charliewwells

AbsoluteVerification @GIPStips

Investment Advisor @InvestAdvMag

Gary Oneil @GaryONeil2

MJ Gottlieb @MJGottlieb

Bob Burg @BobBurg

Melody Campbell @SmBizGuru

TheMichaelBrown @TheMichaelBrown

Phil Gerbyshak @PhilGerbyshak

MuniCredit @MuniCredit

D.J. Rob-Ski @DJRobSki

How Can Investors Survive in a Rising Interest Rate Environment? – Updated

30 Saturday Nov 2013

Posted by wmosconi in asset allocation, bank loans, Bernanke, bonds, business, Consumer Finance, Education, Fed, Fed Taper, Federal Reserve, finance, financial advisor fees, financial planning, Individual Investing, interest rates, investing, investing, investments, stocks, bonds, asset allocation, portfolio, investment advisory fees, investments, LIBOR, math, MBS, personal finance, portfolio, rising interest rate environment, rising interest rates, risk, statistics, stock prices, stocks, Suitability, volatility, Yellen

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

asset allocation, bank loans, Bernanke, bonds, Fed, Fed taper, Fed Tapering, Federal Reserve, fixed income, fixed income securities, interest rate swaps, interest rates, investing strategies, investments, LIBOR, MBS, portfolio management, retirement, rising interest rate environment, rising interest rates, syndicated bank loans, volatility, Yellen

I probably get this question asked of me more than any other these days, especially by retirees.  Investors were once able to place money into bank certificate of deposits (CDs) or into money market funds and easily earn more interest than the rate of inflation.  Unfortunately, the financial crisis of 2008 changed all that in a major way.  While the events surrounding the dark days of the close of Lehman Brothers, the bailout of AIG, and the nearly $800 billion TARP program, were not the sole cause of this phenomenon, they certainly did not help.  The Federal Reserve (Fed) led by the chairman, Ben Bernanke, had to lower interest rates to avoid the credit and liquidity crisis of that time period.  The Fed brilliantly avoided a meltdown and depression.  The side effect is that financial market participants have gotten used to low interest rates.  You will hear the term “taper” thrown about now.  The Fed is not going to raise interest rates yet; rather, they are going to slow their purchase of Treasury instruments and mortgages on the open market.  They are not raising the Fed Funds rate (do not worry about what that is exactly), but, since they were buying approximately 70% of all US Treasuries issued, bond market investors are worried that this demand/supply imbalance will naturally cause interest rates to rise (interest rates have already gone up).  Well, if interest rates will be higher, shouldn’t that be better for bond investors?

An urgent side note to all investors is as follows:  “Beware of financial professionals that recommend dividend stocks or other equities as replacements for your fixed income allocation”.  What I mean by this is that the volatility of stocks is far greater than bonds historically.  Yields may be very low in money market funds, US Treasuries, and in bond mutual funds now.  However, your risk tolerance must be taken into account at all times.  While it is true that many dividend-paying stocks offer yields of 3% or more with the possibility of capital appreciation, there also is significant downside risk.  For example, as most people are aware, the S&P 500 (which represents most of the biggest companies in America) was down over 35% in 2008.  Many of those stocks are included in the push to have individual investors buy dividend payers.  With that being said, stock market declines of 10%-20% in a single quarter are not that uncommon.  If you handle the volatility of the stock market, there is no need to be concerned.  However, a decline of 10% for a stock paying a 3% dividend will wipe out a little more than 3 years of yield.  Individual investors need to realize that swapping traditional bonds or bond mutual funds is not a “riskless” transaction, meaning a one-for-one swap.  The volatility and riskiness of your portfolio will go up commensurately with your added exposure to equities.  Sometimes financial professionals portray the search for yield by jumping into stocks as the only option given the low interest rate environment.  While your situation might warrant that movement in your portfolio allocation, you need to be able to accept that the value of those stocks is likely to drop by 10% or more in the future.  Are you able to handle that volatility when looking at your risk tolerance, financial goals, and age?

The short answer is no to the question posed at the end of the first paragraph.  Before we can answer that question and look at some investment strategies and potential purchases, we need to review how a bond works.  Any bond is simply an agreement between two parties in which one party agrees to pay back money to the other party at a later date with interest.  All bonds have what is referred to as credit risk.  Credit risk is simply the risk one runs that the party who owes you the money will not pay you back (i.e. default).  What is lesser know is interest rate risk and inflation risk.  These two risks are usually missed because investors tend to think that bonds are “safe”.  Interest rate risk relates to the fact that interest rates may rise, while you hold the bonds.  Inflation risk means that inflation may increase to a level higher than your interest rate on the bond.  Thus, if the interest rate on your bond is less than inflation, your purchasing power goes down.  The prices of goods and services go up faster than the interest you earn on the bond.

How do bonds work in terms of prices?  Most bonds are issued at a price of 100 which is referred to as par.  Corporate bonds and Treasury notes/bonds are usually sold in increments of $1,000, and municipal bonds are sold in increments of $5,000.  The value of a bond is calculated by taking the current price divided by 100 and then multiplied by the number of bonds you own.  Bonds are sold in the primary market (when first sold to retail and institutional investors) such that the coupon (interest rate) is equal to the current interest rate prevailing in the marketplace at that time (sold at par which is 100).  Bonds can be bought and sold after that issue date though.  If interest rates rise or fall after issuance, how does the price of a bond adjust?  If interest rates go up, bond prices will go down.  If interest rates go down, bond prices will go up.  Why?  It is referred to as an inverse relationship.  Think about it this way.  If you own a bond that has a 6% coupon and interest rates rise to 8%, will you be able to see that bond to other investors?  The answer is no if you decide to hold firm to a price of 100.  Why should another bond investor buy a 6% bond when he/she can just buy a bond with very similar characteristics as yours and earn 8%?  The only way that you can sell your bond is to lower the price such that the bond investor will earn 8% over the course of that bond’s life until maturity which is when the company or other entity has to pay the money back in full).  Luckily for you, the process works in reverse as well though.  If interest rates go down to 4%, you have the advantage.  If you hold a bond with a 6% coupon as in the aforementioned example, bond investors will pay more than 100 in order to get that higher interest payment.  How much more?  Bond investors will bid the price up until the bond earns an equivalent of 4% until maturity.  Why is this important to you as an investor today?

Let’s take a quick look at history.  Most financial professionals are not old enough to remember or have been in business long enough to remember the interest rate environment back in the early 1980s.  In the early 1980s, interest rates on bonds were incredibly high compared to today.  The economy was stuck in a rut of higher inflation and low or no growth which was called “stagflation”.  How high were interest rates?  The interest rate on a 3-month Treasury bill was 16.3% back in May 1981, and the prime rate topped out around 20.5% soon after.  For more information on the interest rates of this time period, please refer to this link:  http://www.mbaa.org/ResearchandForecasts/MarketEnvironment/TreasuryYields&BankRates,1980-83.htm. The Federal Reserve chairman back then, Paul Volcker (Fed chairman prior to Alan Greenspan and the same gentleman as the so-called “Volcker rule” of today), instituted a monetary policy based upon the teachings of the famous economist, Milton Friedman, from  the University of Chicago.  Friedman was really the start of monetarism.  Monetarism is simply the effect of the money supply in any economy on interest rates.  In general, as more money in the economy is available, interest rates will go down.  As less money is available, interest rates will go up.  Why?  Think about it in this manner.  If you have to get a loan from a family member and you are the only person asking for a loan, chances are your interest rate will be lower than if that same family member is asked by 15 different individuals.  So the Fed of that time period began buying all types of bonds on the open market.  The hope was that, as the money supply grew, interest rates would fall.  As interest rates fell, it would give more incentive to companies to take out loans to buy equipment and build plants and also to incent consumers to take out mortgages and buy homes or purchase consumer goods with credit cards.  Needless to say, the policy eventually worked.  It started what most refer to as the great bull market in bonds in roughly 1982.

There are only two ways you can make money when you own a normal bond.  First, you earn money from the coupon paid over the life of the bond.  Second, in a falling interest rate environment, you earn money by selling your bonds at a higher price.  Therefore, you can earn money from interest and capital gains.  In a rising interest rate environment, you can only earn money from the coupon.  What individual investors, and some money managers even, fail to realize is this simple fact of finance.  The yield on a 3-month US Treasury bill today is roughly 0.06%.  No, that is not a misprint!  The yield on these bills has gone down over 16% over the past 30 years or so.  The bond market has never seen such an extended period of falling interest rates.  Now interest rates did not fall in a straight line, but the trend has been toward lower interest rates for decades now.  That anomalous occurrence is coming (has come) to an end.  What can individual investors do then?

There are a number of things you can do to deal with the specter of rising interest rates.  I do not recommend any specific securities to purchase.  However, these investment strategies are something to consider.  They are as follows:

1)       Purchase an ETF that invests in floating rate fixed income securities

Investors are accustomed to bonds issued with a fixed coupon.  Yes, that is the most common.  However, there are other bonds that have an interest rate which is variable over the life of that bond.  Why would a company want to consider this?  There are two reasons why.  The first reason is that some companies need to borrow money from financial market participants constantly and for short periods of time.  The second reason is that certain companies that have liabilities which float over time.  Why?  They may have revenues that float over time as well.  It is much more complicated than that, but I do not want to get too bogged down into the details.  The most commonplace is a financial instrument known as commercial paper (CP) which is an example of the first reason.  CP is any financial instrument with a maturity of up to 270 days.  Firms, such as General Electric or Goldman Sachs, will sell CP to institutional investors for purposes of raising working capital.  It might be to pay short-term bills, or it might be to fund operations until money comes from previous sales at a later date.  Whenever CP is issued, the current interest rate prevails.  There are ETFs out there (only a few right now though, such as the iShares Floating Rate Note ETF – Ticker Symbol:  FLOT) that invest in CPs or other variations thereof.  The ETF will hold these fixed income securities with very short maturities.

2)      Purchase a target maturity bond ETF

 

When you purchase a bond mutual fund, you are pooling your money with other investors.  You do NOT own the bonds that the mutual fund invests in.  The mutual fund firm will calculate the value of their bond holdings each day and divide it by the number of shares outstanding to arrive at the net asset value (NAV) of the mutual fund.  The mutual fund will allow mutual fund investors to buy additional shares at that price or sell shares at that price.  Isn’t that just semantics and really is the same thing?  Absolutely not!  When you own a bond mutual fund, the holdings of the mutual fund are constantly changing.  You will see an SEC yield quoted and a weighted average maturity (WAM) of the bond mutual fund show in years.  If interest rates rise and you need to sell, the NAV of the bond mutual fund will go down.  Since the bond mutual fund needs to earn as much interest for its bond investors as possible, they will constantly take new inflows from investors, interest payments, and principal payments to invest in bonds issued today.  Therefore, the NAV of the bond mutual fund has to go down.  Since you are never holding the actual bonds to maturity, in a rising rate interest environment, you will receive interest payments from the bond mutual fund, but the value of the bonds held by the bond mutual fund will fall gradually, ceteris paribus.

 

Since interest rates have been falling for so long, most individual investors do not know this.  How do you combat that?  Well, BlackRock and other ETF providers have developed a new type of ETF which is based upon a target maturity.  How do they work?  You can purchase an ETF that might be in existence for five years, for example.  The ETF will invest in bonds with five years to maturity and then disband the ETF after five years.  Thus, as a bond investor, you are only subject to default risk.  As you will recall, default risk is the risk that an entity will not pay back the principal and interest on the bond.

 

3)      Purchase a floating rate instrument directly with a credit enhancement

There are fixed income securities sold which have interest rates that are set very frequently.  One of these instruments is known as a put bond or floater.  Put bonds or floaters are fixed income securities that are sold with an interest rate that is “reset” (i.e. adjusted to reflect current interest rates) on a periodic basis.  For example, they might be reset daily, weekly, or monthly.  Therefore, if you own a floater and interest rates go up, you will earn that new interest rate.  If interest rates go down, you will earn that interest rate.  You do not lose your original principal.  The interest rate is always chosen such that the floaters will sell at par.  Now owning a floater that is tied directly to a company, non-profit, charter school, municipality or other entity is a risky proposition.  You are subject to the credit risk of that entity, and they might default.  However, you can get around being exposed to the credit risk of that entity.  It is possible to purchase floaters (most are actually issued this way) which have a credit enhancement.  A credit enhancement is something that the obligor (i.e. the entity that issues the bonds and needs the money) purchases.  The types of credit enhancements are not that important; the concept is more significant for individual investors.  A floater with a credit enhancement means that, if the obligor defaults, the entity providing the credit enhancement will pay the principal and interest then.  Banks and bond insurers offer credit enhancements.  Therefore, when you purchase a floater with a credit enhancement, you are essentially exposed to the credit risk of the entity providing the credit enhancement and not the issuer (i.e. obligor).  Yes, you still have credit risk.

With that being said, there are floaters out there which have a credit enhancement from Bank of America, JP Morgan, US Bank, Wells Fargo, or Assured Guaranty.  The interest rate will be lower than the interest rate that the company itself would be able to get by accessing the bond market directly.  However, it will save you the time of trying to do a credit analysis of a small manufacturing firm with $50 million in annual revenues.  You can contact a middle market or larger full service brokerage firm to see if they offer put bonds or floaters for sale.  If they say no, but they offer Auction Rate Securities (ARS), it is not the same thing at all.  ARS have very different characteristics which rear their ugly head during liquidity crises like the financial crisis of 2008.

4)      Purchase mortgage back securities (MBS)

 

MBS may have a bad name from the financial crisis of 2008.  I am not referring to MBS that invest in subprime loans.  Subprime loans are speculative in nature.  I am talking about mortgages issued to individuals with good credit scores.  You can purchase an MBS issued by GNMA (Ginnie Mae), FNMA (Fannie Mae), or the FHLB (Freddie Mac).  The GNMA is a government sponsored enterprise (GSE), and FNMA and FHLB are sometimes referred to as “quasi” in nature.  These MBS essentially purchase thousands of mortgages that meet certain requirements in terms of size of the loan and credit of the borrower.  The mortgages are pooled together and sold to investors.

These securities are essentially pass through instruments.  Pass through instruments mean that the principal and interest payments flow through to the owners of the MBS.  Why might you want to own these?  In a rising interest rate environment, people with mortgages will not refinance their mortgages.  Why would you get rid of your 4% 30-year fixed rate mortgage and change to a 5% 30-year fixed rate mortgage?  As interest have been falling over the past several decades, it has been advantageous to refinance ones mortgage to a lower rate.  There are bond mutual funds that invest in MBS.  However, they fall subject to the same phenomenon that I mentioned above.  You are investing in a pool and do not own the MBS directly.  If interest rates go up and you need to sell that bond mutual fund, the NAV on the bond mutual fund will go down.  You can inquire at your local brokerage firm about MBS.  Now if your broker or Financial Advisor talks to you about collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs) being the same thing basically, that is not the case.  CMOs do offer different characteristics which may be attractive, but they are much harder to analyze.

 

5)      Purchase bank loan ETFs with a floating rate

Most corporations borrow money from banks with a floating interest rate.  The interest rate adjusts at certain points and is calculated as a spread over some benchmark interest rate.  The most common benchmark is LIBOR and specifically 3-month LIBOR since many bonds reset quarterly.  Banks will package these loans together and sell them as syndicated loans to various interested institutional investors.  The advantage of these securities is that the interest rate will move up in a rising interest rate environment.  Additionally, most corporate treasurers will enter into an agreement, called an interest rate swap, to change the corporation’s payments into essentially a fixed interest rate.  The complexity of the interest rate swap is not important to discuss in great detail.  The point is that the corporation will then have a fixed interest payment and knows how much they will have to pay over time.  Thus, there will be no surprises if interest rates spike.  Therefore, you are exposed to the credit risk of the corporation for each bank loan.  Remember though that there is diversification in each of these syndicated bank loans because the ETF’s investment advisor will buy many bank loans to diversify the default risk of any one corporation.  One example of an ETF is offered by PowerShares and is called the PowerShares Senior Loan Portfolio ETF (BKLN).  A number of closed-end mutual funds offer similar products.  However, you should always be aware of the management fee assessed by the advisor overseeing the investments.  The expense ratio for many of these closed-end mutual funds is significantly above 1% which tends to offset the benefit of owning such a security because your investment returns will be lower as a result.

6)      Consider purchasing bonds issued by international firms or different countries

 

International firms and different countries have bonds that sell at different interest rates.  The nice thing about these bonds is that they are affected by different factors or the economy may be in a different stage than the US.  It is akin to the multiverse concept of Mohammed El-Erian of PIMCO.  El-Erian tells investors that the global economy is not simply something that is changing in one direction or in one way.  Rather, he states that different countries or regions can be moving in the same or opposite directions at any given time.  Furthermore, bonds issued outside of the US provide diversification to your investment portfolio.  It is the concept of not “having all your eggs in one basket”.  It is one other option for you.  There are countries which are in the process of lowering interest rates, so you can benefit from the interest rate payment and capital gains then.

 

One other thing you can do is to just reduce your duration.  Duration is simply the time it takes for your bonds to mature.  Under normal market conditions, bonds with shorter maturities have lower interest rates than bonds will longer maturities.  Believe it or not, that is not always the case though.  When short-term interest rates are lower than long-term interest rates, bonds with shorter maturities are less sensitive in terms of price movement than longer maturities.  I do not consider this an investment strategy really.  It is just a way of lowering risk.  As previously mentioned, when you hear financial professionals speak about searching for yield in other ways like investing in dividend stocks or MLPs (master limited partnerships), that is not investing in fixed income securities.  Given your risk tolerance, you should have a set allocation to fixed income securities.  You might decide to replace some of that allocation with a higher level of other stocks or other instruments.  However, that is a choice, and you are normally increasing the risk of your portfolio.  I am not saying that is good or bad.  I am simply saying that implementing this strategy comes with tradeoffs.

A New Paradigm for Investing Available on Amazon.com – FREE for Thanksgiving Holiday

27 Wednesday Nov 2013

Posted by wmosconi in asset allocation, Bernanke, bonds, business, Charlie Munger, Consumer Finance, Education, Fed, Fed Taper, Fed Tapering, Federal Reserve, finance, financial advisor fees, financial planning, GIPS, GIPS2013, Individual Investing, interest rates, investing, investing, investments, stocks, bonds, asset allocation, portfolio, investment advisory fees, investments, math, Modern Portfolio Theory, MPT, personal finance, portfolio, risk, statistics, stock prices, stocks, Suitability, volatility, Warren Buffett, Yellen

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

bonds, Charlie Munger, consumer finance, economics, education, Fed, Fed taper, finance, financial advisor fees, Financial Advisors, financial planning, financial services, free books, interest rates, investing, investment advisory fees, investments, retirement, stocks, volatility, Warren Buffett

Greetings to all my loyal readers of this blog.  In keeping with the Thanksgiving spirit, I have decided to make my first two books absolutely FREE for the rest of the week.  These two books on Amazon.com are available for download onto a Kindle.  Additionally, there is a Kindle app for iPhones and Android devices which is free to download.  Please feel free to check out the titles below.  I have provided links to make it easier.   My email address is latticeworkwealth@gmail.com.

The books are as follows:

1)      A New Paradigm for Investing:  Can Your Financial Advisor Answer These Questions?:

http://www.amazon.com/New-Paradigm-Investing-Financial-ebook/dp/B00F3BDTHW/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1381107823&sr=1-1&keywords=A+New+Paradigm+for+Investing+by+William+Nelson

2)       Spend 20 Hours Learning About Investing to Prepare for 20+ Years in Retirement

http://www.amazon.com/Learning-Investments-Prepare-Retirement-ebook/dp/B00F3KW9T2/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1379183661&sr=1-1&keywords=William+Nelson+Spend+20+Hours

The first book listed is normally $9.99 but available for FREE until November 30th.  The other book is normally $2.99, but it is also FREE for the same time period.

I would like to thank my international viewers as well.  I also wanted to especially thank some selected followers of my @NelsonThought and @LatticeworkWlth Twitter accounts (each of whom I would recommend following for the content and insight):

Followers on @NelsonThought:

The Wealth Report @wsjexperts – #wsjexperts

The Royce Funds @RoyceFunds

Research Magazine @Research_Mag

Barron’s Online @BarronsOnline

Vanguard FA @Vanguard_FA

Cleveland Fed Research @ClevFedResearch

Pedro da Costa @pdacosta

Muriel Siebert & Co. @SiebertCo

Roger Wohlner, CFP® @rwohlner

Ed Moldaver @emoldaver

Sylvia Maxfield @sylviamaxfield

The Shut Up Show @theshutupshow

Berni Xiong (shUNG) @BerniXiong

Followers on @LatticeworkWlth:

Euro-banks @EuroBanks

Direxion Alts @DirexionAlts

Charlie Wells @charliewwells

AbsoluteVerification @GIPStips

Investment Advisor @InvestAdvMag

Gary Oneil @GaryONeil2

MJ Gottlieb @MJGottlieb

Bob Burg @BobBurg

Melody Campbell @SmBizGuru

TheMichaelBrown @TheMichaelBrown

Phil Gerbyshak @PhilGerbyshak

MuniCredit @MuniCredit

D.J. Rob-Ski @DJRobSki

Does it even matter if your Financial Advisor adheres to suitability requirement or acts as a fiduciary? Resounding YES!

18 Monday Nov 2013

Posted by wmosconi in asset allocation, bonds, business, Consumer Finance, Education, Fiduciary, finance, financial planning, Individual Investing, investing, investing, investments, stocks, bonds, asset allocation, portfolio, investments, personal finance, portfolio, stock prices, stocks, Suitability

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

bonds, business, compensation, education, fiduciary, finance, Financial Advisors, financial services industry, investing, investment expenses, investment fees, investments, personal finance, stocks, suitability

A great debate is raging on in the financial services industry regarding the concept of suitability and fiduciaries.  In fact, many firms in the financial services industry are lobbying hard with millions of dollars to keep suitability as the “law of the land”.  What is the difference even?  Does it make a difference in the investments and asset allocation strategy recommended to you?  Well, the financial services industry does not want to change the status quo away from suitability; I can assure you of that.  In order to answer that question better, I will provide an analogy below to try to explain the concept more clearly.

Imagine that you have a son or daughter who is finishing up his or her senior year in high school.  He or she has done remarkably well academically and has participated in many extracurricular activities.  Your child is interesting in pursuing a degree in engineering and is not quite sure what school to go to and if mechanical or biological engineering might be the right path.  A sensible and perfectly natural approach would be to consult the high school guidance counselor to get some insight.  The guidance counselor may recommend the local university in town.  The guidance counselor knows that they offer a degree in engineering.  Let’s say your son or daughter report back with excitement at the prospect of going off to college and starting on the path to a career in engineering.

 After you have that conversation, you run into a friend who you “brag” to about the news.  However, that friend is an engineer and mentions that there is a well-respected engineering program only 75 miles away.  That university is known as one of the best in, not only in the state, but in the region.  You are still very proud of your son or daughter but cannot understand why the guidance counselor did not mention that option.  You decide to go to the guidance counselor and ask what his process was when he talked to your son or daughter.  The guidance counselor simply states that your child mentioned that he/she wanted to go into an engineering program.  The local university offers an engineering program, and it is accredited as well.  When you ask why the other university was not mentioned, the guidance counselor replies that his job was only to find a school that had the degree your son or daughter needed.  It was not his job to find the best option.  Needless to say, you would be extremely perturbed or worse.

That little story can serve as the backdrop for the issue of suitability and fiduciaries.  There are some financial professionals that offer advice based upon suitability.  Other financial professionals are considered to be fiduciaries.  Suitability is more akin to the way in which the guidance counselor handled the meeting with your son or daughter.  The job was only to find a school that fit the needs.  Finding a better option was not really thought of or necessary.  The friend actually put you on the path to how a fiduciary approaches things.  A fiduciary would find the best option given all the information about your son and daughter and his/her future plans.

Now the definition of suitability and how a fiduciary must act are really complex from a legal standpoint and the corresponding requirements needed to follow either.  A fiduciary has additional legal responsibilities to you as a client.  In order to be a fiduciary, there are strict rules on compensation, products that meet your financial goals, investment expenses, and conflicts of interest.  What might a conflict of interest be?  Well, a good example is that many financial services firms have proprietary asset management arms and investment products.  If that firm manages your recommended portfolio components, additional revenue goes to that firm.  Another example might be that many mutual fund offerings provide the financial professional with lucrative 12b-1 fees that are referred to in the industry as trails.  A trail simply means that the financial professional receives an annual amount based upon a specified percentage applied to the client accounts that he/she has with the mutual fund company.  Another favorite offering is variable annuities.  These types of products offer extremely high payouts which are applied to the face value of the insurance policy.  It can be very tempting to offer the variable annuity with the highest payout as long as the underlying investments are acceptable (i.e. they invest in large cap stocks that were one portion of your proposed portfolio allocation).

Now I am not saying that anyone who only has to adhere to suitability requirements will automatically place you into investments that have higher fees for you or are better for his/her year-end bonus.  My point is that a fiduciary must adhere to higher standards of conduct and act truly independent.  A fiduciary runs the risk of additional liability if they breach their duty to you as a client.  A financial professional that only has to recommend suitable products has a much lower hurdle to get over.  As long as he or she recommends a mix of stocks, bonds, and alternative investments that meets your financial goals, that is all they have to do.  Of course, that financial professional may suggest the exact same products that a fiduciary would.  However, they are not required to recommend offerings that are the best in terms of investment fees and the best financial product available given your circumstances.

The important thing to remember is to always ask your financial professional whether or not he/she is a fiduciary.  If not, you want to ask them how they come up with solutions that are suitable for you.  You can even ask them if there are other options available.  If you see recommendations that are heavy on the mutual funds of the firm you are dealing with or life insurance products with large amounts of legalize and complicated forms, you should delve deeper into that financial professional’s logic.  You definitely should ask what form of compensation and amount he/she will receive and if any revenue goes to the firm from that financial product.  Additionally, I would ask them why a more low cost, passive approach might achieve the same objective but be less expensive for you.  Some of the responses might surprise you.  If the answers seem to sound more like the guidance counselor, I would urge you to seek a second opinion before you choose that financial professional and start an account with that investment portfolio.

The Two Numbers the Financial Services Industry Does NOT Want You to Know Available on Amazon.com

11 Monday Nov 2013

Posted by wmosconi in asset allocation, bonds, business, Charity, Consumer Finance, Education, Fed Taper, Federal Income Taxes, Federal Reserve, finance, financial planning, Income Taxes, Individual Investing, interest rates, investing, investing, investments, stocks, bonds, asset allocation, portfolio, investments, math, personal finance, portfolio, risk, State Income Taxes, stocks

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

bonds, consumer finance, economics, expense ratios, finance, finance books, financial advice, Financial Advisor, financial planning, financial services, financial services industry, investing, investing books, investment advisory, investment advisory fees, investment fees, investments, retirement, saving for retirement, selecting a Financial Advisor, stocks

I wanted to pass along the latest installment of my book series, A New Paradigm for Investing that I have published on Amazon.com.  The subtitle is The Two Numbers the Financial Services Industry Does NOT Want You to Know.  Have you ever struggled with trying to determine how much value you get for the investment advice you are paying for?  It can seem like everyone has the same “pitch” and the same fees.  Since you are entrusting a Financial Advisor or other financial professional with a large part of your net worth and financial future, you deserve to know exactly how fees work in general.  I am by no means advocating dumping the individual you have developed a relationship with.  Rather, I would like to provide some insight into investment fees and how much they actually are when compared to your annual income.  I assure you that, if you are utilizing a full service brokerage firm or other advisory services, these figures will astound you.

Note that this book is available for download onto a Kindle.  Additionally, there is a Kindle app for iPhones and Android devices which is free to download.  Amazon.com prime members can borrow the book for FREE. I have provided a link below to make it easier.   My email address is latticeworkwealth@gmail.com should you have any questions/comments/feedback.

The link to the book is:

A New Paradigm for Investing:  The Two Numbers the Financial Services Industry Does NOT Want You to Know:

 

http://www.amazon.com/New-Paradigm-Investing-Financial-Services-ebook/dp/B00GCQACF4/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1384183129&sr=1-1&keywords=a+new+paradigm+for+investing+by+william+nelson

I would like to thank my international viewers as well.  I also wanted to especially thank some selected followers of my @NelsonThought and @LatticeworkWlth Twitter accounts (each of whom I would recommend following for the content and insight):

Followers on @NelsonThought:

The Wall Street Journal Wealth Report @wsjexperts – #wsjexperts

The Royce Funds @RoyceFunds

Research Magazine @Research_Mag

Barron’s Online @BarronsOnline

Vanguard FA @Vanguard_FA

Cleveland Fed Research @ClevFedResearch

Pedro da Costa @pdacosta – Reporter for Reuters covering economics and the Federal Reserve

Muriel Siebert & Co. @SiebertCo

Roger Wohlner, CFP® @rwohlner

Ed Moldaver @emoldaver

Sylvia Maxfield @sylviamaxfield

The Shut Up Show @theshutupshow

Berni Xiong (shUNG) @BerniXiong

Followers on @LatticeworkWlth:

Euro-banks @EuroBanks

Direxion Alts @DirexionAlts

Charlie Wells @charliewwells – Editor of the Wall Street Journal Wealth Experts

AbsoluteVerification @GIPStips

Investment Advisor @InvestAdvMag

Gary Oneil @GaryONeil2

MJ Gottlieb @MJGottlieb

Bob Burg @BobBurg

Melody Campbell @SmBizGuru

TheMichaelBrown @TheMichaelBrown

Phil Gerbyshak @PhilGerbyshak

MuniCredit @MuniCredit

D.J. Rob-Ski @DJRobSki

You Purchased a Stock: Now What?

27 Sunday Oct 2013

Posted by wmosconi in asset allocation, Bernanke, bonds, business, Charlie Munger, Education, Fed, Fed Taper, Fed Tapering, Federal Reserve, finance, financial planning, Individual Investing, interest rates, investing, investing, investments, stocks, bonds, asset allocation, portfolio, investments, math, Modern Portfolio Theory, MPT, personal finance, portfolio, risk, statistics, stock prices, stocks, volatility, Warren Buffett, Yellen

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

$WU, asset allocation, bonds, business, Charlie Munger, equity, equity selection, finance, individual stocks, investing, investments, momentum stocks, portfolio, stock pickers market, stockpicking, stocks, value investing, Value Masters, Warren Buffett, Western Union

One of the questions that I have been asked is about individual stocks, and, more specifically, how to monitor developments after the purchase.  Now I have mentioned before that I strongly recommend that you do not start off trying to buy individual stocks.  ETFs and index mutual funds are a better way to start off investing and will generally garner you higher returns in the long-run.  Why?  Well, please continue reading, and you will see how I approach the decision to purchase a stock and when I decide to sell.  Now my method is strictly my own, but you will see it closely mirrors Warren Buffett’s style of investing.  There are many other market participants that use a variation of the Buffett and Graham paradigm.  Moreover, there are literally tens of thousands of portfolio managers, hedge fund investors, research analysts, and others that value stocks every second of every day in response to company, economic, and geopolitical news.  Once you see how much work it takes, I am hopeful that you do NOT try it to begin with.

Before delving into the process of following a stock after your purchase, I will go through the steps I take prior to a purchase.  I strive for a turnover of 15-20%.  Turnover measures how long an investor holds a particular stock.  A turnover of 100% means that an investor holds a stock for one year.  Thus, my turnover equates to a holding period of 5.0 to 7.5 years.  So if I am willing to hold a stock for that long, I better make sure I am confident that it is a good investment.  How do I start?  I have a list of stocks that I am interested in purchasing.  If I decide to possibly invest, I go through a lengthy process.  Now I am not recommending any security.  However, I want to put some meat surrounding the discussion.  Therefore, I will talk about my process in terms of my decision to purchase Western Union (WU).  Western Union is now my top holding.  Should you buy WU?  Maybe so.  Maybe not.  You must do your own homework and not take my word for it.  As a show of good faith, I encourage you to look at my Twitter account:  @NelsonThought.  I have been posting information about WU for several months, so I am not “cherry-picking” to make me look good.  Let’s begin.

Regardless of where I get my ideas of stocks to analyze, I start off my analysis by learning everything I can possibly get my hands on.  You would be amazed at how much information is out there.  Prior to deciding to even value WU, I took a number of steps.  First, I read the last three annual reports for WU.  What do I focus on?  The most important part of any annual report is a section called Management Discussion & Analysis (MD&A).  MD&A is indispensable because management has a chance to be open and honest with investors.  Now when you purchase a stock, you should view yourself as a fractional owner in the actual company.  You do not own a piece of paper that says you have x number of shares.  You own a claim to the future cash flows and dividends of that firm.  Contained within the MD&A is management’s discussion is a review of the most recent financial developments, their strategy, and what management thinks is the future direction of the company.  WU’s management team talks a great deal about emerging markets.  WU relies upon the wiring of money between individuals.  The most important, growing income stream comes from immigrants sending money back home to their families.  For example, did you know that 30% of the Gross Domestic Product of El Salvador comes in the form of these remittances?  Wow!  That fact always gets to me.  Obviously you can see that the emerging markets are a great way for WU to grow earnings.  Additionally, WU has a huge market share in the correctional system.  If family members or loved ones of prison inmates need money to purchase items behind bars, they can use WU to transfer money into their accounts to buy food, hygiene products, and even other items like TVs and radios.  WU’s management speaks at length about these opportunities, and they also focus on growing their network of facilities that provide their services.  There is a “network effect” for WU.  The more money transfer centers there are, the more people in general will use their services.  For instance, if a local WU outlet is right near your house, and you need to wire some money to an individual or business, you are more likely to use it.  Well, if you need to wire money to a friend, and the nearest WU outlet is 50 miles from that person, WU is probably not a good option for you.  Therefore, it makes sense for WU to provide good incentives to build up their network.

Now I really focus on MD&A going back in time because management is telling you what they intend to do in the future.  Think about it in these terms.  Have you ever had a friend who tells you that they are going to quit working and start a business?  I know that I have.  More often than not, when I see that person in several years, they tell me that they are still working but they are starting the business soon or they found a better business to start.  It is great to have ideas, but, unless you act upon them and do it, there really is no point.  Well, the same scenario happens very often with a business.  Management might describe great plans to grow the business back in 2010.  If they never speak about it again, or they have new and better ideas when you read the 2012 annual report, that should be a red flag for you.  Now changing strategy is sometimes warranted, but management should be transparent with you.  If a strategy is no longer relevant, or it did not work out, they should explain why.  It is only fair.  You own the stock; you own part of the company.  Always take the time to compare prior MD&A with current MD&A.  This technique can save you a lot of time.  Why value a stock if management does not seem to know what they are doing?

After you feel comfortable with management and still have strong beliefs that the business is well-positioned, you can look at the financial statements of the company.  Every publicly traded company is required to file financial statements with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).  The reports are called 10-Ks on an annual basis and 10-Qs on a quarterly basis.  The SEC even has a website that you can go to when you look for them.  It is called the EDGAR system can be found here:  http://www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml.  The financial statements will include the income statement, balance sheet, and statement of cash flows.  Which part is most important to me?  Well, that is a trick question.  I go to the back of the financial statements and look at the notes to the financial statements.  Do not feel bad if you got the question wrong.  When I pose the question to undergraduate students during presentations that I give, I have never had a finance student give the correct answer.

 Why do I say the notes?  For one, I have an accounting undergraduate degree, so I am interested in them.  You can always get financial statement ratios and earnings expectations online, but they rarely incorporate information from the notes.  Now the notes to the financial statements tend to be boilerplate to begin with.  The accounting firm that audits the financial statements of a firm will explain that the company used generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and disclose the accounting methodology utilized when GAAP allows different choices.  After all these disclosures, you will find lesser known items.  The second reason why I look at the notes to the financial statements is to see if there is something I do not understand.  What do I mean by this?  You may remember the downfall of Enron.  The downfall of Enron was right in plain sight all along.  Enron had a disclosure “buried” in the notes that talked about Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs).  What is a SPV?  I still really have a vague understanding, but here are the basics without getting too technical.  A SPV is a separate legal entity that is set up to own assets and incur liabilities.  It is really like a subsidiary of a company but, since it is a separate entity, the assets and liabilities of the SPV are not required to be reported on the company’s balance sheet.  What?  This phenomenon is called off-balance sheet reporting.  Essentially it is a way to not disclose liabilities.  Think about it in terms of the federal government.  The federal government does not consider future Social Security and Medicare benefits to be necessary to be reported in the current budget.  Thus, the $50+ billion of future payments of benefits is not reported; only think tanks talk about it periodically.  Now I do not want this to be a political discussion.  That is not my intent.  I simply bring it to your attention as a more familiar example of this topic.  Thus, Enron had liabilities that it had to repay in the future, but, if you only examined the financial statements, the future payments were not on the balance sheet.  The auditors did not look too closely.  Why?  I liken it to this.  No one wanted to raise his/her hand and say what is this SPV thing.  In general and in business, people do not want to look uninformed or “dumb”.  If you see something in the notes to the financial statements that you do not understand, I would suggest that you pass on the purchase of that stock.  When I look at the notes for WU, there is nothing that bothers me in particular.

After I look at the notes, I focus on the statement of cash flows, balance sheet, and then the income statement.  I look at them in that exact order.  Now I do not prepare a model at this point to value the company.  Rather, I do some calculations in my head.  Is the company actually generating cash from the operations of the business?  Does the company have enough assets to invest in the business?  Are earnings coming from sources that will either never occur again or have nothing to do with its core business?  These are very vital questions to ponder.  Why do you not value the company at this point?  Now I really have a number in mind for what the stock is worth, you still need to compare that to the sub-industry and industry that the company operates within.

As one reader commented, he was probably going to use this discussion to cure his insomnia ailment.  Hopefully you made it this far.  Are we having fun yet?  I promise we will get to the discussion of how to follow a stock after making a purchase, but I need to lay the foundation to ensure that my method makes sense.  Not that it is right, but the logic of the paradigm is plausible.  As it relates to the sub-industry and industry, I perform what is referred to as a SWOT analysis.  SWOT stands for Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats.  Now I already know the S and W part from my review of MD&A and the review of the financial statements issued by the company.  The O and the T refer to the industry and competitors.  The main competitors in this space to WU are MoneyGram International and Euronet Worldwide.  How does WU match up against these two?  These two companies are smaller than WU, but bigger is not always better.  These two firms are constantly innovating and trying to make inroads into the niche of WU.  They are referred to as firms within the sub-industry.  The industry as a whole is the financial services industry.  Now WU is able to grow significantly in the emerging markets because the banking industry is not very developed in these countries.  It is easier at this point to simply pick up a wire transfer at a Western Union outlet than to open a checking accounting.  I can assure you that banks have noticed taking note.  Banks are trying to come up with ways to make it easier to open an account and simply have the money deposited there.  That is the most common way to look at the industry.  Now sometimes it is easier to ignore other developments, but I try to take everything into account.  Did you know that you can make wire transfers at most Wal-Mart stores now?  That development might be a game-changer.  Think about it this way.  Why should you go to WU when you can simply do your normal shopping at Wal-Mart and then send your wire transfer?  Remember that there are a plethora of Wal-Mart stores, so they already have a built in “network effect”.  They are a definite competitor even though they are technically in the retail industry.

After my entire analysis, I was confident that the purchase of WU would be a good investment.  How do I go about valuing any stock?  As I mentioned previously, I use a method that Warren Buffett has perfected over the years.  Trust me, I am no Warren Buffett.  If I were as good as Warren Buffett, I would not be writing this blog.  However, his method (coupled with Phil Fisher, David Dodd, Charlie Munger, Bill Ruane, and a few others) makes sense to me.  Think about stocks like bonds.  Bonds are much easier to value.  Why?  They are a promise to pay back money loaned to them.  The only return from a bond held to maturity comes from the coupon.  The coupon is simply the interest rate.  As an aside, you will hear coupon over and over again.  Where does the term come from?  Back in the older days, when you would purchase a bond, the company would give you a certificate that actually had coupons.  When a payment was due from the company, you would take the coupon to your local bank and get your money.  The bank would collect all the coupons and present them directly to the company.  This was prior to the introduction of computer systems to monitor who owned which bond.  That is why you will hear the term coupon.  Anyway, the interest rate of the bond does not vary over time.  A bond is worth a set amount that you will receive upon maturity and the periodic interest payments, but you need to remember that the payment is fixed.  What if interest rates fall?  If you purchased a bond that had a 6% coupon and the prevailing interest rate for the same type of bond rises to 8%, how are you able to sell the bond?  Why would I buy your bond if I can simply buy one with an 8% coupon?  You can sell me that bond by lowering the price.  A corporate bond is usually issued in $1,000 increments, so, if interest rates rise, you can simply lower the price to make its return equivalent to owning an 8% percent bond.  This is what is referred to as an inverse relationship.  It works the same way in reverse if interest rates fall.  If prevailing interest rates fall to 4%, you can afford to charge what is referred to as a premium because buyers in the marketplace cannot find a better opportunity with your 6% coupon.  Therefore, you can charge more than $1,000.  How does this relate to stocks?  Stocks are nothing more than bonds with variable cash flows.  Now if you ignore the fact that owning a bond makes you a creditor and holding a stock makes you an owner of the firm, you really need to value it in the same way.  However, it is infinitely more difficult.  Why?  You do not know how the company will fare in the long-term.  Will the strategies work out, will they be executed properly, will another competitor overtake the company, or will a new technology displace the service provided by the company?  I have already talked about the competitors of WU, banks knocking at the door, and the “invasion” of Wal-Mart into the space.  All of these elements cause the future earnings of WU to be unknown and variable.  I am still confident with the prospects of WU, so I move to valuing the company and approach it in the same manner as I would a bond.

To me (and many others), a stock is only worth what a company can earn in the future.  If you have a friend that has a business idea but you can see that it is unlikely to work, would you invest in the firm?  Probably not.  When I look at WU, I see that it is likely to earn money far into the future.  What are earnings?  You will hear many different terms because there are many different types of market participants and other stakeholders.  I focus on a concept called owner earnings.  Owner earnings are a combination of Free Cash Flow (FCF) and changes in Plant, Property, and Equipment (PP&E) and working capital.  FCF is simply the cash that comes from ongoing operations of the firm.  However, you need to remember that the firm needs to make future investments in technology and other items.  Thus, when you look at depreciation of PP&E which is only an accounting convention, the company may need to make more or less investments into the business in order to keep competing.  Additionally, the company needs cash to simply pay current bills that come due which relates to working capital.  If you calculate FCF and adjust for PP&E additions and working capital, you come up with owner earnings.  Once you calculate owner earnings, you know that the firm will be able to grow owner earnings over time.  If they cannot grow owner earners in the future, you probably would not be at this point in the analysis right now.  Well, you also need to remember that these earning will occur in the future.  Why is this important?  Think about loaning $100 to a friend for a year.  If he/she tells you that they will pay you the $100 back sometime next year, you will most likely want more than $100.  For one, you automatically know that under normal economic conditions, it will cost more than $100 to buy the same amount of products or services next year.  Additionally, you could have bought something else with the $100 and enjoyed it right away.  This is the concept of utility.  For example, you could have purchased 5 or 6 Blu-Ray discs and enjoyed watching these movies.  You are forgoing that consumption because you loaned out the money.  In order to make it worth your while, you might tell your friend that you will loan him/her $100, but you want them to pay you $110 next year.  This will compensate you for inflation and delaying your consumption.  The same economic principle applies to the purchase of stocks.  You could spend your money, or you could invest in another stock.  Therefore, you will only purchase a stock if the price will increase satisfactorily in the future such that you can make money.  You need to discount these future owner earnings.

How do you discount the owner earnings?  I come up with my financial model at this point.  I determine how much WU will earn over the next five years, the five years after that, and then for the rest of its existence.  Once you have calculated the next five years, you need to remember something.  If a certain company is earning what is referred to as “excess profits”, other firms will come into the market and try to do the same thing because it is lucrative.   Additionally, there might be other technological advances which make the wire transfer business of WU less attractive or obsolete, which is even worse.  Thus, I assume that WU will grow at a certain rate for five years, a lower rate for the next five years, and then a growth rate similar to the general economy forever.  The last part is somewhat of a plug figure.  Most stock analysts will say that WU (or any other company) cannot keep growing at high rates forever, it will eventually grow owner earnings very similar to GDP growth in perpetuity.  Now I use an assumed growth rate of 3.5% which is higher than the domestic economy because WU has a significant presence in the emerging markets which are growing at a faster clip.  Now that I have a stream of owner earnings, I need to discount them to the present.  The discount rate is a subject of much debate.  I use a rate of 7% or the equivalent of the yield on the 10-year US Treasury.  Other investors will use a higher rate.  I won’t get into a debate about the proper discount rate to use.  I simply follow the advice of Warren Buffett.  Here is a link to see his rationale:  http://www.sherlockinvesting.com/help/faq.htm.  If I discount that owner income stream back to the present at that discount rate, I come up with what is referred to as an intrinsic value.  Intrinsic value is a concept that was coined and explained at length by the father of value investing, Benjamin Graham.  The intrinsic value is what I think WU is worth right now given the current business environment and likely future prospect.  Now since I am fallible and the future is uncertain, I use the margin of safety concept also introduced by Benjamin Graham.  I take the intrinsic value figure and reduce it by a certain amount.  For WU, since it is in a somewhat stable industry and finance is my background, I use a margin of safety of 20%.  Therefore, I multiply my intrinsic value figure by 80% (100%-20%).  If the current stock price of WU is lower than my calculation, I am inclined to buy.  The intrinsic value I get for WU is significantly above the current stock price.  I purchased WU at $14.24 average cost, and it now trades at $18.36 as of August 9, 2013.  I still hold the largest portion of my portfolio in WU because I see the intrinsic value of WU as being higher than that presently.

As you might imagine, this entire process took me roughly 55-60 hours.  Surprisingly, there are many stock analysts that may say that I was not thorough enough.  An example would be the famed hedge fund investor Bill Ackman.  I am willing to bet that I spent more time prior to the purchase of WU than you will spend on financial planning over the course of your lifetime.  I do not mean this in a condescending manner.  I only point this out to simply show why the purchase of an individual stock is not right for everyone.  I tend to refer to myself as a “dork”.  I am passionate about investing, and I love to perform this type of analysis and calculations.  If you are not willing to put in that type of time to do your homework, I would stop at this point.  I will repeat again that ETFs and index mutual funds are much better choices for individual investors.  If you would like the chance to beat the index averages, I would rather see you invest in actively managed mutual funds or separate accounts than try your hand at selecting individual securities.  With that being said, I will now turn to what I promised to in the beginning.  Please forgive me for what might seem to be a circuitous route.

I intend to hold WU for a long time.  I have a set intrinsic value, and I am willing to stick to holding the stock through all the “visiccitudes and vagaries” of the stock market.  My emotional intelligence is higher than most investors.  I view investing as an intellectual exercise.  The money is secondary.  As soon as you start focusing on the money, you may be tempted to sell your stock if it falls in price significantly for what might seem like no apparent reason.  If I need to wait for 5-10 years for WU to reach its intrinsic value, I am willing to do so.  Does this sound like fun?  Well, it is to me.  Unfortunately, this has really nothing to do with what you read in most financial news publications or see on financial media.  However, you need to remember that I am an investor in the company and not trading pieces of paper.  I can confidently say that the way investing is portrayed in the financial media is much more akin to speculation.  My suggestion is to go to the casino if you want to try to double your money.  You will have more fun.  Investing in stocks to gain significant riches immediately is a fool’s game in my opinion.

What do I focus on after the purchase?  The first thing I do is to read all the earnings transcripts of the firm.  After each quarter, the company will file a 10-Q with the SEC and announce financial results to the public.  Management will then talk to analysts on an earnings call to recap the quarter and then answer questions from a selected group of research analysts.  I try to see if the earnings results match up with MD&A and if management uses any “excuses”.  An example of a typical excuse is the weather.  If a retail outlet has depressed earnings, they tend to use bad weather as an excuse at times.  It may be likely, but, more often than not, it is a way to hide poor execution by management.  Any particular quarter should not affect your intrinsic value calculation much.  In the short-term, there can be developments that affect earnings for a temporary time.  I do not worry about quarterly earnings, but I am interested in how the company is doing.

The second thing I do is to keep up with general economic conditions.  I visit the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) website on a periodic basis.  The link is as follows:  http://www.bls.gov/.  The BLS is the agency of the government that monitors and releases economic statistics like GDP growth, new housing starts, the trade deficit, and a lengthy amount of others.  I focus on leading indicators, but I also am interested in the so-called lagging and coincident indicators released by the BLS.  Why do I pay attention to this?  I do so for one primary reason.  I am very confident in my calculations of future owner earnings for WU.  However, I usually extend that to include a three-part probability exercise.  For example, the likely path of owner earnings for WU is definitely affected by the current/future state of the economy.  I have a percentage for normal, boom, and bust scenarios.  The normal part gets the highest weight, and I then attribute different percentages to the other two.  Now I will admit that these are very subjective, but they are imperative.  How does the calculation work?  Well, I assume that WU will earn more money if the economy does better than expected or less money if the economy enters a recession.  Therefore, I multiply these scenarios by three different percentages.  For example, I currently weight my estimates of future owner earnings by 80% normal, 15% boom, and 5% bust.  Therefore, if the state of the economy changes or its future trajectory, I alter the percentages.  Since WU relies so much on remittances across borders, if global growth slows significantly, I need to weight the stream that assumes a recession much higher.  Using this approach, I do not have to recalculate owner earnings for WU again.  I simply use the three different scenarios and weight them differently.  Trust me, it saves a lot of time.

The next thing I do is to follow the developments of competitors.  I read the earnings transcripts of these firms, do a cursory review of financial statements, and look at how the industry is possibly changing (for better or for worse in terms of WU’s positioning).  It is extremely valuable to be constantly testing your investment thesis.  You need to be ready to admit that you made a mistake.  You can lose a lot of money otherwise.  I can attest to that via Best Buy (BBY) and Citigroup (C) stock holdings in the past.  With that being said though, you need to do that without referencing the case laid out by speculators.  If someone tells me that WU will have a bad third quarter, I really do not care.  I am willing to ride out stock price volatility because I know that WU is worth more than the current market price.  The advice from speculators relates to traders of stocks (owning pieces of paper) and not investors.

I also follow market developments.  Although I do read the Wall Street Journal and Financial Times, I try not to get too hung up on the current news of the day.  You can get in trouble that way by feeling itchy and pulling the proverbial trigger and selling in a panic.  I commented on this in more detail in a previous blog as it relates to the entire stock market.  The link is as follows:  https://latticeworkwealth.com/2013/08/04/todays-news-should-prompt-you-to-adjust-your-entire-investment-portfolio/.  I tend to put more weight in The Economist, Barron’s, Bloomberg Businessweek, and trade journals.  I even read a few publications that seem unrelated but can make all the difference.  One great source is the Harvard Business Review.  This magazine is technical and “heavy duty”, but it can be a great way to identify mistakes that WU management is making or how they are behind the curve when it relates to business strategy.  This information helps me to determine whether or not my calculation of future owner earnings is correct and will come to fruition.

My next technique is a little odd to some.  I have found that I can learn a great deal about investing from other disciplines.  In fact, I will devote an entire post to the name of my firm.  I use what Charlie Munger, whom I lovingly refer to as Warren Buffett’s sidekick, calls the latticework of mental models.  This approach is to acknowledge that ideas from other discipline are germane and pertain to investing.  A perfect example is psychology.  There has been an explosion of ideas in the disciplines of behavioral finance and behavioral economics.  These fields do not assume that market participants are rationale.  Humans have innate biases and make consistent mistakes.  As an investor, you can use this to your advantage.  The one adage along these lines comes from Warren Buffett:  “Be fearful when others are greedy and greedy when others are fearful”.  If everyone is telling me that WU is going to the moon, I start to question my investment thesis.  Now as a contrarian investor, if everyone is selling WU for reasons that are temporary or are related to general market selling, I perk up and even look to add to my position.  You can read more about the latticework of mental models in an excellent book by Robert Hagstrom called Latticework:  The New Investing.  I use the concept of complex adaptive systems from biology, and the concept of nature searching for equilibrium from physics all the time.  In fact, there is an entire website that you can learn a great deal from.  It is called the Sante Fe Institute.  This think tank is not devoted to investing at all, but they are looking for common themes among different disciplines.  Take a look; I promise you will not be disappointed:  http://www.santafe.edu/.  I now will turn to the little talked about decision to sell a stock.

I think about WU in these terms.  If I come across another investment opportunity that is better than WU, I will sell WU.  If management or the state of the economy changes, I will sell WU.  If you are in a tax-deferred account (401(k), 403(b), Roth IRA, etc), you do not need to worry about taxes.  However, my individual stocks are in a taxable account.  While taxes should not guide your sell decision, you must take them into account when deciding if another opportunity is truly better.  Why?  You should only care about terminal values.  If you sell WU and buy another stock, that purchase should increase the value of your portfolio in the future.  That makes sense intuitively.  However, your mind can play tricks on you.  What if I am expecting to earn 9% a year from WU and another stock comes along that I can earn 13%?  Should I sell WU and earn the 13%?  The answer is that it depends.  Here is a typical scenario.  Let’s say I now own $20,000 of WU and purchased WU with an original investment of $10,000.  Thus, I have a $10,000 capital gain that is now subject to a 20% capital gains tax.  If I decide to sell WU and receive $20,000, I have to pay $2,000 ($10,000 * 20%) to the federal government come tax time.  Let’s look at the scenario in terms of expected yearly results.  If I sell WU to earn 13% in another stock, I am really only investing $18,000.  If I decide to keep WU, I still earn the 9% and avoid a capital gains tax.  What happens at the end of the year?  If my scenario holds true, I will have $21,800 ($20,000 + $20,000 * 9%) in my brokerage account at the end of a year if I earn 9% from owning WU.  If I decide to sell WU and buy the other stock, I will have $ 20,340 ($18,000 + $18,000 * 9%).  Yes, I earned 13% on my new stock, but I have a lower amount in my brokerage account.  Why is this a common phenomenon?  Well, most people file their taxes and pay any capital gains tax from their checking account.  The money does not come out of the brokerage account directly.  Your net worth goes down overall, but your brokerage account “misleads” you into thinking you made a great selection because you earned an extra 4% by owning this other stock.  In fact, you would need to earn 21.1% in order to have $21,800 in my brokerage account by being able to pay the capital gains tax and then have the same terminal value as I would by simply holding WU and earning 9%.  If you ever wondered why Warren Buffett holds onto Coca-Cola (KO) and American Express (AXP), taxes factor in greatly.

Now for all of you readers that are not asleep, I appreciate you bearing with me.  As I mentioned before, investing is not meant to be fun or exciting.  It is only fun and exciting if you like the intellectual challenge.  For all of us “dorks”, we go through this analysis because it is truly fun to us.  For most people, they would much rather not spend 60 hours finding a stock to buy and then 20-25 hours per year following your stock after the purchase.  Luckily, you can own an ETF or index mutual fund and likely match my investment return in WU or even beat it over the long term.  For more information on the style of Warren Buffett, I refer you to the following series of books by Larry Hagstrom (mentioned him before):

1)       The Warren Buffett Way

2)       The Warren Buffett Portfolio

3)       The Essential Buffett

4)       Security Analysis by Benjamin Graham the sixth edition

You will note that my investing style is similar to Warren Buffett, but I have incorporated elements from other famous investors and from other disciplines.  I will never be another Warren Buffett.  However, I can strive to use a similar investing paradigm.  Hopefully this discussion was helpful in thinking about one possible way to monitor your stock purchases.  Yes, it is a great deal of work and time consuming.  You will have much better investment results though, if you know as much as you can about your stock.

Are Your Investment Fees Higher Than Your Taxes? Probably.

22 Tuesday Oct 2013

Posted by wmosconi in business, Charity, Consumer Finance, Education, Fed Taper, Federal Income Taxes, finance, financial planning, Income Taxes, Individual Investing, interest rates, investing, investing, investments, stocks, bonds, asset allocation, portfolio, investments, math, NailedIt, personal finance, portfolio, risk, State Income Taxes, statistics, stocks, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Adjusted Gross Income, AGI, asset allocation, bonds, charity, disclosures, federal income taxes, fee-only, fee-only financial planning, Financial Advisors, financial planning, hidden fees, hidden financial fees, income taxes, investing, investment fees, investments, portfolio, reasonable investment fees, RIA, state income taxes, stocks, tax planner

There are two important ratios that most individuals do not pay enough attention to.  In fact, the financial services industry rarely, if ever, makes mention of them.  They are as follows:

–          The first ratio measures the amount of your investment fees paid versus the total federal, state, and local income taxes you pay.

–          The second ratio measures the amount of investment fees paid versus your total income.

Why are these two ratios so important?  First, they bring to your attention the absolute dollar amount of investment fees paid to your Financial Advisor, your brokerage firm, and other third parties.  Second, you will note that, although you cannot choose to ignore paying your income taxes, you can lower the total amount you spend on financial and investment advice.  Lastly, you can think about what other uses you might have for the money you spend currently on investment fees either in whole or in part.  Let’s talk briefly about how to calculate these ratios and then delve into their usage in more detail.

The ratios are fairly easy to calculate.  The first ratio is investment fees paid versus total federal, state, and local income taxes you pay.  Luckily, most people do not pay local income taxes, and several states have no income tax.  If you do have one or both of these taxes, you simply add the total taxes due together from all three sources.  Note there is a big difference between taxes paid and taxes due.  If you received a federal and/or state tax refund, you still paid taxes into the system.  A refund is simply an adjustment to ensure that you only pay your fair share according to the tax code.  You would add up the taxes due to federal, state, and local agencies on your income tax returns.  Your investment fees come directly from your brokerage statement(s).  The two most common expenses are asset under management (AUM) fees and commissions.  You would add up all the AUM fees and commissions charged to your over the course of the year.  The only other number you need is to take your Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) from your federal tax return.

As I have stated in previous posts, the most common AUM fee is 1%.  So let’s take a common scenario for retirees today.  For illustrative purposes, assume there is a retiree with a $1 million portfolio in a 401(k) account that withdraws $50,000 and is charged a 1% AUM fee.  The total AUM fee would be $10,000 for the year.  If the retiree also has Social Security income of $20,000, the second ratio would be 14.3% ($10,000 / ($50,000 + $20,000)).  What does that percentage mean?  The percentage shows you that your investment fees are equivalent to 14.3% of your annual income.  Now the total taxes paid by each individual will vary greatly.  However, the average taxpayer tends to pay around 10%-15% in federal and state income taxes.  In our assumed scenario above, the total income taxes due would be $7,000-$10,500.  The first ratio is either 142.9% ($10,000 / $7,000) or 95.2% ($10,000 / $10,500).  What does that percentage mean?  The percentage shows that in the higher tax situation you are paying essentially the same amount in income taxes as you are in investment fees.  The lower tax situation shows that your investment fees are 42.9% higher than your income taxes.  No matter which way you slice it, you are in a high “investment fee” bracket.  The investment fees you are paying are yet another drag on the net income you end up having for living expenses and for leisure activities.  To a great extent, your income taxes are fixed in any given year unless you have an unusual income stream occur.  Your investment fees are variable every single year.

Now I am not saying that you should no longer use a Financial Advisor or go to your investment firm.  Please do not mistake that as my message.  However, I am recommending that you calculate those two ratios to bring the investment fees to your attention.  You can then make the choice regarding whether or not you might want to seek out a fee-only or hourly Investment Advisor or Financial Planner.  Or you might want to investigate if you have the knowledge or can acquire the knowledge how to manage your own investments.  What would be the incentive of those two alternatives?  Obviously I am biased, but nothing like these stories inspire me more.  My parents are in the grouping that would be charged roughly $10,000 per year in investment fees.  They are lucky enough to not require a Financial Advisor to whom they would pay a 1% AUM fee or similar level.  I recently found out that they will be taking a two-week cruise in Europe next month for essentially that same amount.  My father is fine with the vacation because he knows my mother deserves a relaxing time after her recent (and successful) battle with breast cancer, and he has listened to my logic in terms of the “savings” that they have each year.  You might debate the term “savings”.  I simply use the term due to the fact that they are taking a cruise rather than paying a Financial Advisor and his/her firm.  It is the same choice that you have when it comes to how you would use your money, if you did not have to pay an AUM fee.

For many other people, the monies can be used to help family and charities while you are still alive.  For example, you could decide to pay $10,000 toward your grandchild’s college education or add money to your grandchildren’s’ 529 college savings plans.  Or, if you have 15 grandchildren, you might choose to buy all of them an iPad for the holidays.  Conversely, the charitable uses for the money are almost as endless as your imagination.  One particularly interesting idea with Thanksgiving coming around the corner is paying for dinners for disadvantaged families.  The average family spends roughly $50 for a Thanksgiving dinner each year.  That figure sounds quite low to me.  What if you gave 130 families $75 toward their Thanks giving dinner next year?  If you wanted to split the monies between your family and charity, you could buy 65 dinners instead.  Imagine being able to allow an entire square block of families be able to enjoy a great meal or how many more free Thanksgiving meals a homeless shelter could serve with $5,000.    The great thing about this new-found freedom is that you will avoid the $10,000 AUM fee the following year again.  You can choose to do the same thing the following year in whole or in part.  Why not choose to get to know two local families, sponsor them, and pay for their groceries for the entire year?

Note that there is nothing that says you cannot see a fee-only or hourly Investment Advisor or Financial Planner.  You might pay $250 per hour for four hours or a flat fee of $1,000 on an annual basis.  In that scenario, you would be saving $9,000 ($10,000 – $1,000).  Plus, there is another thing that retirees fail to realize most of the time.  There is no rule that says you have to keep all your money at one full service brokerage firm.  There are many individuals that maintain an account at a full service brokerage firm and have another account with most of their funds at a discount brokerage firm.  The full service brokerage firm will want you to transfer the funds over to them, but I worked for years preparing performance reports for high net worth clients.  Many of them had money at other firms, and we simply included that information as data points in a customized report that showed all their assets and returns of their portfolio.  If your firm balks at you moving monies from them and tells you they might drop your account, I would seriously consider why you are at that firm anyway.  You can ask your Financial Advisor what value he/she provides that necessitates your keeping all your assets there.  I would encourage you to show him/her your two ratios and use that to start the discussion.

There may be certain cases where it is difficult to find your investment fees.  If you are not paying any commissions or an AUM fee, I certainly assure you that your Financial Advisor is not managing your money for free and he/she a nice person.  You should ask what fees you are paying.  Did you pay a load to purchase a mutual fund?  What is the expense ratio of your mutual funds or variable annuities?  There is a multitude of ways to charge fees, and it is in the best interest of a financial services firm to not disclose each of them.  Now I will clarify here.  You will most certainly get a financial note that says you are charged x percent, but it is quite rare for that percent to be changed into an actual dollar amount for you to view.  For the aforementioned scenario above, the firm should say that your AUM fee is 1% which is equal to $10,000.  The latter figure is much more impactful.

What are good benchmarks for the ratios discussed above?  The first ratio measures your investment fees versus your total income taxes.  A ratio of 10%-15% is a great target.  The second ratio measures your investment fees versus your total income.  A target of 1%-3% is a great target.  If you are accustomed to dealing with a Financial Advisor, it is quite unlikely that your ratios will approach those levels.  However, as previously mentioned your investment fees are variable and can change.  Your Financial Advisor may make the argument that he/she is needed to ensure your income taxes are strategically planned.  Well, he/she should have been doing that all along, right?  Isn’t that one of the reasons why you are currently working with a Financial Advisor?  If you have a tax plan in place and are not expecting an unusual sum or source of income, the additional cost of having a Financial Advisor as a “tax expert” is usually not a good cost/benefit option.  Why?  Does it make sense to pay a Financial Advisor an extra $9,000 per year over a fee-only Investment Advisor to ensure you do not pay an extra $1,000 in income taxes?  The net cash flow for you is a decline of $8,000; remember you can always consult your tax accountant or financial planner for an hourly consultation whenever a tax situation comes up.  Furthermore, you can arrange to meet with either party for at least one hour per year to speak only about taxes.

Lastly, I strongly encourage each of you to open a checking account at a bank or credit union that you only use to pay investment fees and income taxes.  It is very easy to find a checking account that charges no monthly fee whatsoever, especially at a credit union in your area.  There may be cases where it is inadvisable to pay investment fee via a checking account.  Why?  Well, you would have to withdraw the money, pay federal and state income taxes, and then send the money to your financial services firm.  In that case, I would encourage you to pay your investment fee with a check from your home equity line of credit.  Most of the time, you will be paying 3-5% in interest on a home equity loan.  The tax-equivalent interest rate at today’s levels is approximately 1.95-3.75%.  In order to highlight the level of investment fees paid, it is well worth paying an additional $200 or so in interest on your home equity loan.

← Older posts

Subscribe

  • Entries (RSS)
  • Comments (RSS)

Archives

  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • April 2017
  • July 2016
  • May 2016
  • March 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • August 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013

Categories

  • academia
  • academics
  • active investing
  • active versus passive debate
  • after tax returns
  • Alan Greenspan
  • alpha
  • asset allocation
  • Average Returns
  • bank loans
  • behavioral finance
  • benchmarks
  • Bernanke
  • beta
  • Black Swan
  • blended benchmark
  • bond basics
  • bond market
  • Bond Mathematics
  • Bond Risks
  • bond yields
  • bonds
  • book deals
  • books
  • Brexit
  • Brexit Vote
  • bubbles
  • business
  • business books
  • CAPE
  • CAPE P/E Ratio
  • Charity
  • Charlie Munger
  • cnbc
  • college finance
  • confirmation bias
  • Consumer Finance
  • correlation
  • correlation coefficient
  • currency
  • Cyclically Adjusted Price Earnings Ratio
  • Dot Com Bubble
  • economics
  • Education
  • EM
  • emerging markets
  • Emotional Intelligence
  • enhanced indexing
  • EQ
  • EU
  • European Union
  • Fabozzi
  • Fama
  • Fed
  • Fed Taper
  • Fed Tapering
  • Federal Income Taxes
  • Federal Reserve
  • Fiduciary
  • finance
  • finance books
  • finance theory
  • financial advice
  • Financial Advisor
  • financial advisor fees
  • financial advisory fees
  • financial goals
  • financial markets
  • Financial Media
  • Financial News
  • financial planning
  • financial planning books
  • financial services industry
  • Fixed Income Mathematics
  • foreign currency
  • forex
  • Forward P/E Ratio
  • Frank Fabozzi
  • Free Book Promotion
  • fx
  • Geometric Returns
  • GIPS
  • GIPS2013
  • Greenspan
  • gross returns
  • historical returns
  • Income Taxes
  • Individual Investing
  • individual investors
  • interest rates
  • Internet Bubble
  • investing
  • investing advice
  • investing books
  • investing information
  • investing tips
  • investment advice
  • investment advisory fees
  • investment books
  • investments
  • Irrational Exuberance
  • LIBOR
  • market timing
  • Markowitz
  • math
  • MBS
  • Modern Portfolio Theory
  • MPT
  • NailedIt
  • NASDAQ
  • Nassim Taleb
  • Nobel Prize
  • Nobel Prize in Economics
  • P/E Ratio
  • passive investing
  • personal finance
  • portfolio
  • Post Brexit
  • PostBrexit
  • probit
  • probit model
  • reasonable fees
  • reasonable fees for financial advisor
  • reasonable fees for investment advice
  • reasonable financial advisor fees
  • rebalancing
  • rebalancing investment portfolio
  • rising interest rate environment
  • rising interest rates
  • risk
  • risk tolerance
  • risks of bonds
  • risks of stocks
  • Robert Shiller
  • S&P 500
  • S&P 500 historical returns
  • S&P 500 Index
  • Schiller
  • Search for Yield
  • Sharpe
  • Shiller P/E Ratio
  • sigma
  • speculation
  • standard deviation
  • State Income Taxes
  • statistics
  • stock market
  • Stock Market Returns
  • Stock Market Valuation
  • stock prices
  • stocks
  • Suitability
  • Taleb
  • time series
  • time series data
  • types of bonds
  • Uncategorized
    • investing, investments, stocks, bonds, asset allocation, portfolio
  • Valuation
  • volatility
  • Warren Buffett
  • Yellen
  • yield
  • yield curve
  • yield curve inversion

Meta

  • Register
  • Log in

Blog at WordPress.com.