Personal finance trends – the good and bad

Positive developments in 2013

1)      Lower expense ratios on many Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs). Last year, Schwab started the trend of lowering ongoing management fees on their ETFs and eliminating the transaction costs to buy and sell these products on the Schwab platform. This move attracted the attention of competitors and now many ETFs are cheaper to own than ever before. These products allow the broadest diversification across entire market segments at the lowest possible cost.

2)      The government has increased the contribution limits for retirement accounts for the first time since 2008. Annual IRA contributions were bumped up by $500 to $5,500 for people 49 and under and $6,500 for 50 and over investors. Employer retirement plan contributions also increased. Individuals under 50 can contribute $17,500. The over-50 catch up contribution can add another $5,500 to get to $23,000 total.

3)      Congress adopted higher federal estate tax thresholds ($5.25 million per person and $10.5 million per couple in 2013) than expected by most pundits. This effectively eliminates the prospect of paying federal estate tax for 99.86% of estates according to the Tax Policy Center. It also provided much more clarity for estate planning professionals who work with high net worth individuals on estate planning issues. Many states still have lower estate tax thresholds, however. For example, in Washington state the limit is $2 million. If a person dies with an estate value of $1,999,999 no state estate tax is due. But reach $2,000,001 and an estate tax return and payment are necessary.

4)      Investors have returned to markets. According to Leuthold Group, through April 24, net cash flow into mutual funds was at its strongest pace ever with year-to-date positive cash flow $223 billion.

Trends that concern us:

1)      Regarding that cash flow, the point of concern is that $106 billion of the incoming investments have gone to bond mutual funds. We think bonds will be severely challenged to generate meaningful returns over the next several years. Combine the premium many bonds are trading at with current low yields and the fact that total return could turn negative when interest rates rise and particularly U.S. government bonds will struggle to post returns anything like the past decade. By comparison, $22 billion of new investments have entered U.S. stock funds so far this year.

2)      The low interest rate policy set by the Federal Reserve Board. This policy has lowered the borrowing costs for the U.S. Government, but it has also changed the way that we all invest. Bond investors who are searching for yield are taking considerably more investment risk with their fixed income portfolios than ever before. When the Fed finally increases interest rates, three things may happen: inflation could increase dramatically, bond default rates may rise, and returns for bonds could turn negative as investors seek newer bonds at different increasing interest rates.

3)      Less affordable long-term care insurance. A few trends are becoming clearer for the LTC marketplace. A) most residents of nursing homes are women, b) Most baby boomers don’t have long-term care insurance because they either feel that it is too expensive or they don’t think that they will ever need it, C) Rates paid for LTC policies are becoming gender based, and although they have stabilized somewhat in the past year, the combination of the continuation of the low interest rate policies by the federal government and higher claims rates by women will force LTC prices to continue to grow at higher rates than inflation.

~ Allyn Hughes, CFP® — Brooks, Hughes & Jones – Partners in Wealth Management, Tacoma, WA

www.BHJadvisors.com

If you liked this post, please share it

Expanding the dictionary to deal with bond challenges

Calvert, a mutual fund company that specializes in socially responsible investments, has trademarked a new financial term – Thincome™. “Thin” and “Income” are combined to create a word which describes what is now happening to income-oriented investors. Namely, that low interest rates have made it difficult for the average retiree to live on the income that is paid by bonds, savings accounts and other fixed income investment options that they hold.

Over the past few years many retirees have had to fundamentally change their investment allocations to try to overcome Thincome. The Federal Reserve’s commitment to a very low interest rate environment has forced investors to take a couple steps up the ladder of risk in order to receive the same income they had become accustomed to with more conservative investments. Many investors have moved money into international and emerging markets bonds which pay higher rates. Some have increased exposure to higher yielding “junk” bonds which have also provided more attractive returns. They have increased the duration and maturity of the bonds in their portfolio to increase yields.

These steps can reasonably be expected to increase income and total return from bonds, but it’s important that investors understand that this Thincome environment has led to our new contribution to the investment dictionary – Riskcrease. Riskcrease is the increase in risk that Thincome investors have taken on in search of higher yields.

The problem with Riskcrease is most investors are unsure how much additional risk they have taken on by making these changes to their fixed income investments. Five years ago, their fixed income portfolios were probably fairly conservatively managed. Now, many of these fixed income portfolios are subject to a broader range of risks than before.

We suggest that investors understand the specific risks of each of their fixed income holdings to properly address both Thincome and Riskcrease.

~ Brooks, Hughes & Jones — Partners in Wealth Management — Tacoma, WA

www.BHJadvisors.com

If you liked this post, please share it

Questions to ask before making a charitable donation

More than 1.5 million not-for-profits organizations in the U.S. are registered with the IRS as charitable 501(c)(3) entities according to the NCCS Business Master File. In 2010 these nonprofits paid 9.3% of all of the wages paid in the U.S. and had revenues of $1.51 trillion (source: The Nonprofit Almanac, 2012).

Each 501(c)(3) organization has its own mission, leadership and primary funders. Some of these are national organizations that attract large amounts of donations and are very financially secure. Others are “bootstrap” organizations that support a very specific (and often very local) cause. Many of these are close to being financially bankrupt and don’t have the resources necessary to achieve the objectives that their creators have developed for them.

According to the Current Population Survey, completed in September 2010, over 25% of Americans volunteer each year.

Deciding which charitable organization to support with your time, treasure or talents can be a difficult choice. We find that most folks manage their charitable giving in a few different ways.

Some work on the boards or as volunteers of one or more organizations and tend to focus both their time and their money to help support those entities.

Others support a religious organization that is important to them. Sometimes they tithe. Other times they make consistent donations of time and money.

Still others try to spread their charitable dollars around. They often support both local and national organizations that either have asked them for a donation, or that provide a service that they think is valuable.

Finally, quite a few support both local and national charitable objectives by participating in fraternal organizations like Lions, Rotary and Masons.

There is no right way to support an organization.  

In our experience relatively few people have a specific plan to support charities. They tend to make contributions that are proportional to their level of emotional investment in the objectives of the charity. They worry less about how specifically their money will be spent.

Making good decisions about philanthropy

We look at philanthropy the same way we look at investments. We try to understand how the charitable organization is managed, determine what its goals are and better understand how the contribution will be used.

Here are the three questions that we ask when making a donation: 

  • How financially healthy is the charity? To determine this go on to the web and download IRS Form 990 for the charity. The IRS requires each charitable organization to complete form 990 each year. It contains a lot of useful information—the charity’s goals, its income and expenses for the previous year, its leadership and board members and the expenses associated with managing the assets of the charity.
  •  How has the charity spent its donation in the past? The easiest way to determine this is to ask the executive director or lead fundraiser for the charity about how donations have been spent. Were they used to pay the overhead of the management and the fundraisers at the organization? Were they used to fund one or more specific programs? Try to determine the efficiency level of the fundraising efforts for the entity.
  •  How (likely) will my donation be spent? We always try to figure out if a donation will be spent on a specific expense associated with achieving the charity’s mission or if the money will go toward an endowment fund that the charity manages.

Spending the time to get the answers to these three questions will give you a much better idea of the strengths and weaknesses of a charity so you are comfortable that your money is being spent wisely.

~ Allyn Hughes, CFP®, ChFC®, CLU® — Brooks, Hughes & Jones, Partners in Wealth Management – Tacoma, WA

www.BHJadvisors.com

If you liked this post, please share it

Fracking, natural gas and the economics of energy

Richard Vodra, is a lawyer and Certified Financial Planner™ and the president of Worldview Two Planning of McLean, VA. He recently published an article “Is Fracking a ‘Happy Solution’ to our Energy Needs? In this article he brings up a variety of issues that the U.S. faces with the production of natural gas from fracking. Fracking involves injecting steam and other chemicals into shale or sand deposits deep underground to extract oil products and natural gas.

Vodra’s primary points:

1)      The price of natural gas in the U.S. is currently too low. On Friday, February 22, 2013, the spot March 13, 2013 contract price was $3.28 per thousand cubic feet of natural gas. One barrel of crude oil has about the same energy content as 6000 cubic feet of natural gas. The spot price for a barrel of West Texas crude oil for the April 13, 2013 contract was $93.13. The equivalent price of natural gas was $19.68. No natural gas producer can make money at this rate as break-even price for producing natural gas is thought to be between $6 and $8 per thousand cubic feet

2)      The cost to drill a natural gas well is too high. According to Vodra, a typical fracking oil well in Texas now costs over $10 million to drill, compared to less than $1 million for a conventional oil well.

3)      It takes too much energy to get the gas out. Traditional (oil) wells have a ratio of energy returned on energy invested (EROEI) of 10- or 20-to-one, or an energy cost factor of 5 to 10%. The EROEI with fracking is in the range of 5- or 10-to-one, or a cost factor of 10 to 20%. This cost factor is too high to be sustainable.

4)      Fracking uses millions of gallons of water per well, most of which is unusable thereafter because it is too polluted. There is competition for water rights between oil companies on one hand and farmers and ranchers on the other.

5)      Fracking might be making the earth less stable. Earthquakes in areas that don’t commonly have them, including Ohio and Oklahoma, have been linked to fracking activities nearby.

6)      The life of a fracking well ends quickly. A conventional well’s production declines at about 5-8% per year, and it can remain productive for decades. By contrast, the first-year decline in shale wells is over 60%, and about 90% of a well’s production occurs in the first five years. That creates a “drilling treadmill,” as new wells are needed simply to replace production from wells drilled a few years before.

The leaders of many public utilities across the U.S. are betting that the costs of natural gas will remain low. They are re-thinking their decisions to run coal fired power plants and older nuclear power plants and are often choosing to shut them down because they are either too expensive to run, or they don’t meet stricter environmental regulations. Many of these will be replaced by cleaner burning natural gas plants that are today much cheaper to run.

Given the list of the six key concerns about natural gas listed above, we wonder how long the pricing advantage of natural gas can last for U.S. consumers and what will happen to the largest users of natural gas when the costs for equal amounts of oil and natural gas are more equivalent?

Additionally, the National Geographic cover story in the March 2013 issue also looks at fracking, specifically in North Dakota, and examines at what cost the fuel supply is being expanded.

~ Allyn Hughes, CFP®, ChFC®, CLU® — Brooks, Hughes & Jones, Partners in Wealth Management – Tacoma, WA

www.BHJadvisors.com

If you liked this post, please share it

Financial fitness from the viewpoint of personal fitness

This post was provoked by a comment I read in a financial industry publication from Stuart Ritter of T. Rowe Price’s retirement services division.

Ritter said “saving 3% for retirement is like going to the gym for six minutes.” Acknowledging low rates of savings for many retirement plan participants, Ritter’s contention is that just as 30 minutes of exercise should be a minimum daily routine, savings for retirement should also be done at five times his example. Instead of saving 3% of annual salary, most people should save 15%.

I think Ritter’s quote goes a bit too far. There are some people who couldn’t manage a decent quality of life (even without living beyond their means) if they deferred 15% of their income into retirement savings. An important thing to consider when determining how much to save for retirement is how much of the heavy lifting you want to rely on investment markets to do and how much of it can you do by managing a prudent financial life that pays yourself first via retirement savings.

If you are saving just 3% of annual income, investment markets will be forced to do much more of the heavy lifting to get you to a point where you can come reasonably close to replacing your earned income in retirement by combining Social Security and withdrawals from investment accounts.

For the dwindling few (mostly government employees) who will receive an employer-funded stream of pension income in retirement, saving just 3% of income in addition to the pension may actually be adequate for living lean in retirement. For the majority, it won’t – especially if the savings is not invested in aggressively enough over the long-term to generate a meaningful rate of return.

Consider if at age 30 – possibly after paying off student loans and saving for a down payment on a home, a couple (or even a single wage earner) make $80,000 per year and their income grows at 2.5% per year. If they saved 3% of income in a pre-tax employer retirement plan and earned a 7% average annual investment return for 35 years, retiring at 65, they would have $473,846 of savings. This balance, assuming it continued to earn 7% returns for 30 years of retirement could reasonably be expected to generate approximately $1,400 per month of inflation-adjusted after-tax income to age 95. Add that to the average Social Security benefit and the couple (or individual) has to learn to live on a lot less than while they were working.

I think a more prudent minimum retirement savings is 10% of annual income. Apply the same scenario as before with 10% savings (perhaps through both personal and employer match contributions) and the balance after 35 years is $1,457,633 pre-tax. It would have about a 70% probability of supporting  $4,400 per month of after-tax spending for 30 years to age 95.

Of course, many people can’t afford to save 10% of their annual income early in their career but they expect to increase their contributions over time. What if someone upped their retirement plan contribution by 1% every two years. They start at 3% for two years, then 4% for two years and so on until they reach 15% of their income for the final 10 years of their career. Would they ever catch up to the person who saved 10% throughout? No. Even though they would have contributed approximately $58,000 more dollars to the retirement plan, saving much more during the peak earnings years, they would end up a bit less than $200,000 behind the consistent 10% saver. This is due to the missed opportunity to have more money growing and compounding returns in the early years.

While saving just 3% of income for retirement won’t sustain the same standard of living as pre-retirement, saving 15% throughout a career could be oversaving for some people, sacrificing a little bit too much today for the opportunity to use it in retirement.

The most important point is to take the time (or hire an independent financial advisor) to determine what amount of savings you will likely need to live on in retirement. This will inform your level of needed savings throughout the remainder of your working life and also be a guide for the appropriate investment strategy.

  • What can you do to increase your rate of savings in retirement plans?
  • Do you know how much money you need to save today to replace your income in retirement?

~ Gary Brooks, CFP® – Brooks, Hughes & Jones – Partners in Wealth Management – Tacoma, WA

www.BHJadvisors.com

If you liked this post, please share it

Important College Financial Aid Tips

For those of you with college-age kids or kids who will soon be in college, one of the annual rights of passage is the completion of the Federal government’s “FASFA” (Free Application for Federal Student Aid) form. For many, this form should be completed as early in February as possible.

The information on the FASFA is used by college financial aid offices to determine how much the expected contribution towards annual college costs should be from the family (parents and child(ren)) and how much should come in the form of scholarships, grants and loans. This information is presented in snapshot format — it measures all assets and debts as of the date that it is completed.

Even if you don’t expect to qualify for much aid, the FAFSA process is necessary to be eligible for Stafford Loans (for the student) or PLUS loans (for the parents.)

Mark Kantrowitz, the publisher of Fastweb and FinAid, recently made a presentation to financial advisors about some of the techniques that parents could use to lower the “expected family contribution” (EFC) towards college costs from parents. His talk included these strategies:

  • Minimize income. Parents should work to minimize their income during the base year (the year before their oldest child goes to college) and the other years that they have children in college. This can be done by deferring income (perhaps into your employer retirement plan) or avoiding taxable distributions from retirement plan and using capital losses to offset taxable capital gains where possible.
  • Actively reduce reportable assets. The FASFA form looks at the parent’s income, savings, taxable investments, trust assets, 529 or Coverdell Education savings accounts and value of any business holdings. It also asks for the total savings of the student. It does not look at the value of the parent’s home, the assets in retirement accounts or their debt. Because of this, parents who want to minimize their EFC should use assets in savings or other taxable investment accounts to pay down loans, credit card balances or mortgages and lines of credit before completing FASFA.  They should also work to maximize their retirement plan contributions for those years. Finally, it is better to save in the parent’s name and not the name of their child because a much smaller percentage of the parent’s assets are counted towards the EFC than the child’s assets.
  • Spend down assets smartly. Parents should spend down the assets of the child (buy buying computers for college or other supplies for the child) before they file the FASFA. This will lower the expected contribution rate of the child.
  • Maximize student overlap. The EFC for a family is reduced if more than one child is in college. This is the one case where it pays to have triplets.

For more information on FASFA, see the fastweb website at this link: http://www.fastweb.com/content/fafsa

  • How are you saving for college expenses?
  • What has your experience been like dealing with financial aid offices?

~ Allyn Hughes CFP®, ChFC®, CLU® — Brooks, Hughes & Jones – Partners in Wealth Management – Tacoma, WA

www.BHJAdvisors.com

If you liked this post, please share it

Stock market rally justified by earnings, reasonable market value

The U.S. stock market turned in a strong first month of 2013 as the S&P 500 gained 5.2%.

This coming after a 16% total return for the S&P 500 in 2012 has some wondering if the rally is close to exhaustion.

While we don’t expect double-digit gains to build throughout 2013, we don’t think the market is close to being overheated either. We’re not making a forecast but thought it might be helpful to see a couple charts that help explain value of the market. Of course, these charts and analysis portray a rational view and markets can become irrational from time to time. There’s no sense in trying to predict a return for the year or any short time frame. As Warren Buffett has said: “short-term market forecasts are poison and should be kept locked up in a safe place, away from children and also grown-ups who behave in the market like children.” However, we can confidently forecast that you’ll want stock market exposure over long periods regardless of short-term results.

So on with the show.

Two charts from presentations I’ve watched recently demonstrate how market prices may have room to grow to catch up with the reported earnings of U.S. companies.

This view of S&P 500 inflection points is from J.P. Morgan. Look at the first peak, March 2000. A measure of market value is the price/earnings ratio of the market. What price are investors paying for each dollar of company earnings. At this euphoric time, the P/E ratio (based on forward earnings expectations) was over 25. It had become excessive and the market needed a cleansing to get back down to a P/E ratio closer to historic norms.

The recovery from the internet bubble peaked in October 2007. At that time, even though the price of the S&P 500 had surpassed the March 2000 price, the price/earnings ratio was 15.2, 40% below the 2000 P/E ratio. The market had not been bid up by speculative investors quite like in 2000. Of course, that didn’t stop a significant bear market due to the credit crisis and recession of 2008.

So where are we at today? The recovering S&P 500 has crossed a price of 1,500 again. But corporate earnings have also grown at a strong rate. This means the price is generally justified by the earnings. The forward price/earnings ratio at the end of 2012 was just 12.5, roughly half of the irrational exuberance peak of March 2000.

Add January’s price appreciation and the forward P/E ratio is about 13.3.

SP500InflectionPoints

The combination of earnings and investor confidence in the trajectory of those earnings will be critical to determining how long this rally will continue.

Here’s another view – from economist Fritz Meyer – demonstrating how the market price has some catching up to do if history can be trusted as a guide.

SPearningsJan2013

 

The black line of the S&P 500 price over the past 25 years has generally kept an edge above the red line (S&P 500 earnings). It’s clear to see however, that the late 1990s S&P 500 value and the 2007 value grew disconnected from the reality of earnings.

Since 2010, though, good corporate earnings have not been reflected in stock prices that grow at the same pace. The S&P 500 black line has spent most of the time below the earnings line. Look at projected earnings going forward for 2013 and 2014 and you could rightfully judge that there is justification for stock prices to continue growing without getting too expensive.

Recovering investor confidence could have something to do with that. If cash flows shift back toward stocks and away from the bond market, gains may continue.

Of course, there are many potential shocks to the global economy which could erode emerging confidence and disrupt the growth in corporate earnings. But at this point, even significantly lower earnings would justify the current value of the S&P 500.

The S&P 500 is a stock market index based on the market capitalizations of 500 leading companies publicly traded in the U.S. stock market, as determined by Standard & Poor’s.

  • How confident are you in the stock market?
  • Have you changed the weight of stocks in your portfolio recently?

~ Gary Brooks, CFP® – Brooks, Hughes & Jones – Partners in Wealth Management – Tacoma, WA

www.BHJadvisors.com

If you liked this post, please share it

The college tuition hurdle gets higher

FrugalDad.com compiled this infographic that summarizes the growing expense of paying for an education.

Washington state colleges have contributed to the problem as the state legislature has allowed state universities to raise tuition over the past four years by 13.1%, 13.1%, 19% and 16%. That means every $1,000 of tuition from the 2008-09 school year now costs $1,766.

And now, Washington legislators are seriously considering the closure of the Guaranteed Education Tuition (GET) program.

College Isn't Cheap

~ Gary Brooks, CFP® – Brooks, Hughes & Jones — Partners in Wealth Management, Tacoma, WA

www.BHJadvisors.com

If you liked this post, please share it