Category Archives: Investments

Thoughts to help you make better investment management decisions.

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

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

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

Federal budget issues on deck

This article from Charles Schwab’s Washington expert Michael Townsend and Director of Income Planning Rob Williams provides a good outline of the debt ceiling and other upcoming federal negotiations and how they may impact markets and retirement income.

There are three deadlines looming. How well, or not, Congress and President Obama work together, will likely dictate movement in stock and bond markets over the next several weeks.

Topics covered include:

  • Impact of default or debt downgrade
  • Debt ceiling debate is about more than just default
  • Debt downgrade more about politics
  • Downgrade could have spillover effects
  • Tax-exempt status of muni bonds
  • Interest-rate impacts on bonds
  • Low interest rates hurt retirees
  • Bonds or bond funds?

~ Gary Brooks, CFP(r) — Brooks, Hughes & Jones, Partners in Wealth Management — Tacoma, WA

www.BHJadvisors.com

 

If you liked this post, please share it

Retirement decisions timeline

Age 49 and under. 401K contributions are limited to $17,500 in 2013. Traditional IRA and Roth IRA contributions limits are $5,500.

The income limit (AGI) for contribution to a Roth IRA in 2013 has a phaseout range from $178,000 to $188,000 for married-filing-jointly taxpayers and $112,000 to $127,000 for single taxpayers.

The income limit to make a tax-deductible contribution to a Traditional IRA in 2013 has a phaseout range from $95,000 to $115,000 for married filing jointly (if covered by an employer retirement plan also) and $59,000 to $69,000 for singles. If you are not covered by an employer retirement plan, tax-deductible contributions can be made up to $178,000 of AGI for married filers.

Age 50 and over. 401K contributions are limited to $23,000 with catch up provision. IRA or Roth IRA contributions levels are $6,500 with catch up provision.

Age 55. If you leave your job after age 55, you can begin to take 401K distributions from your former employer’s plan without paying any penalties. Income tax will still be due on the amount of the distribution.

Age 59½. Distributions from IRAs may be made without penalty. Income tax will still be due.

Age 61. Think about when you want to retire and determine when you want to start receiving Social Security if you will be eligible for it. The most likely reasons to start receiving it are: lack of employment or under-employment, lack of income from investments, or a shorter-than-average life expectancy.

Age 62. Eligibility for Social Security begins. The Social Security Administration no longer sends an annual estimate of your expected benefits. You will have to access the estimate at www.ssa.gov. Your Social Security benefit will be permanently reduced by 25-30% if you begin payments at 62 instead of your Full Retirement Age (FRA). Keep in mind that starting Social Security early may also reduce benefits available to your spouse by as much as 35%. And if you continue to work while you receive Social Security, your benefits will be reduced by one dollar for every two dollars you earn over $15,120 in 2013.If you were born on January 1st, you should refer to the previous year.

  1. If you were born on the 1st of the month, we figure your benefit (and your full retirement age) as if your birthday was in the previous month. If you were born on January 1st, we figure your benefit (and your full retirement age) as if your birthday was in December of the previous year.
  2. You must be at least 62 for the entire month to receive benefits.
  3. Percentages are approximate due to rounding.
  4. The maximum benefit for the spouse is 50% of the benefit the worker would receive at full retirement age. The % reduction for the spouse should be applied after the automatic 50% reduction. Percentages are approximate due to rounding.

Age 65. Medicare eligibility begins. From three months before you turn 65 to three months after you turn 65 you may sign up for Medicare Parts A, B and D. Sign up for Medicare Part D (prescriptions) from October 15 until December 7. If you (or your spouse) are covered by an employer-paid health plan, you have eight months after you retire before you will have to pay a penalty to join Medicare.

Age 66 or 67. Considered Full Retirement Age (FRA) for Social Security recipients. If you were born before 1954, you are eligible at age 66. From 1955 to 1959, your FRA increases from 66 years and 2 months to 66 years and 10 months. If you were born in 1960 or later, the FRA is 67. At FRA you can still continue to work without receiving reduced Social Security benefits.

Age 70. Last year to receive deferral credit for postponing receipt of Social Security benefits. There is no reason not to take Social Security at this point. If you continue to work, and your earnings are higher than previous inflation-adjusted earnings, your Social Security benefit will continue to be increased even if you are already receiving it.

The year you reach 70½. (Or, more precisely, April 1st after the year that you turn age 70 ½). Distributions from IRAs, and other tax-deferred retirement plans like 401K and 457 plans (except Roth IRAs) must be started. The distribution amount will be determined by dividing the total value of all tax-deferred retirement accounts as of the previous December 31 by your life expectancy using IRS tables. If you fail to take this distribution, or your distribution amount is less than the minimum required, the tax penalty is 50% of the amount you failed to remove from the account.

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

If you liked this post, please share it

Cost basis enters the spotlight for investment decisions

Cost basis is an often unloved but certainly important piece of information in managing investment decisions in non-retirement accounts. With the upcoming tax changes scheduled for 2013, however, cost basis and capital gains or losses could play a more important role than usual in your decisions before the end of the year.

Your cost basis is the total amount you have invested in any particular position or asset. In the case of a stock, bond or mutual fund, the cost basis is comprised of not only your initial investment but any additional purchase of new shares – whether they come via reinvested dividends or income or are simply new money invested.

Cost basis shouldn’t be overlooked because the basis can be an important variable in your after-tax returns. Being tax efficient can help you protect more of your gains.

In 2013 the long-term capital gains tax is scheduled to rise from 15% to 20% of the gain for most taxpayers and as high as 23.8% of the gain for high income earners. The current rate has been in place since May 2003. Although this tax will rise by a third, even the 20% rate is historically low. The average long-term capital gains tax since 1942 is 27.55%.

Considering the following scenarios may help you make tax-wise decisions about your investments before year end.

GO AHEAD AND SELL A WINNER

Generally, deferring taxable events as long as possible is preferable. But this year, realizing gains and paying the capital gains tax at the 15% rate, rather than a higher tax later, could effectively increase your after-tax return on your investment. Where gains are concerned, there is no rule that disallows you from repurchasing the same asset that was sold. Or, perhaps more appropriate, you can realize the gain by selling the asset and use the proceeds to further diversify your portfolio, managing risk.

CONSIDER HOLDING ON TO LOSERS (if the asset still fits your investment objective)

Realizing losses by selling positions that have declined below the cost basis is a common year-end task. But you may want to think twice about this strategy. One reason is that losses will be more valuable when used to offset capital gains in the future at higher tax rates.

Another less obvious reason is that while you may receive tax benefit by selling at a loss now, it’s possible that the benefit could be more than offset by future capital gains taxes that are higher. Here’s an example. Consider an investment with a $20,000 cost basis that declines to $15,000. You sell the position and realize a loss of $5,000 before December 31, 2012. You reinvest the proceeds for a new cost basis of $15,000, not the original $20,000. The reinvested money rises to $30,000, doubling your money, and you sell. Because of this tax increase, you would owe more in capital gains tax than if you had just held the initial position with a $20,000 basis and waited for it to grow to $30,000. The initial tax deduction of the $5,000 loss would be worth $750 assuming the 2012 15% capital gains rate. But the reinvested assets, growing from the lower cost basis would generate a higher future tax bill. Essentially, there would be an extra $5,000 of capital gain. With the future capital gains tax at 20%, the tax cost would be $1,000, a bigger drag on your after-tax return than the $750 tax deduction that was received upon selling the initial investment for a $5,000 loss.

NO TAXES ON CAPITAL GAINS FOR LOW INCOME EARNERS

If your taxable income happens to be under $70,700 (married filing jointly) or $35,350 (single taxpayer in 2012), you can sell investments with a long-term capital gain in 2012 and pay no tax. Next year, a 10% capital gains tax returns for individuals in the 15% tax bracket or lower. This may be most useful for people who have business losses or other causes for unusually low taxable income but they still have assets in a taxable investment account with gains.

TURN THE UNKNOWN INTO A GIFT

Many people have investments for which they do not know the cost basis. If it is not easy to compile an accurate historical basis for the holding, there is a simple solution with many benefits – gift it. If you donate the investment to a non-profit organization, you will receive a tax deduction for the date-of-gift market value and there is no need to determine what the basis is. You can receive a tax deduction for securities gifts up to 30% of your adjusted gross income. The charity receives the gift and does not have to pay a capital gains tax whenever it sells the position. If the position is of a size larger than you would comfortably gift normally, discuss funding a charitable gift annuity or other account that returns an income stream to you to supplement your retirement income.

DON’T DOUBLE PAY TAXES

Regardless of your situation, keeping track of cost basis is important so that you don’t unintentionally pay more tax than necessary. The most frequent problem investors face when determining their costs basis is not adding reinvested dividends or income to your initial purchase cost. This creates a form of double taxation. The reinvested income is taxed annually whether you reinvest it or not. If it is not included in growing the cost basis over time it is essentially taxed again as capital gain at the sale of the asset.

For many people who have held investments with reinvestment features over the years – or who have transferred a holding from a fund company to a brokerage or from one brokerage to another, keeping track of the cost basis can require a tedious search of old statements or trade confirmations.

All taxable mutual fund and brokerage account statements are now required to include cost basis. If your statement is missing information, the custodian of the account does not have complete records. You will need to go on a bit of a treasure hunt for the missing details. You should be sure to understand the basis before selling the position to make sure that it is accurately reported to the IRS by the custodian of the account.

Two other points are worth noting that may impact your decisions to sell investments and realize gains or losses. If you have a capital loss carryforward (losses beyond what you could deduct on your tax return in previous years) it may be more valuable to you to wait to next year to sell your winning investments to offset higher capital gains rates than this year.

And there is another way to gain tax efficiency and better after-tax returns that may be worth waiting for, if unpleasant to think about – your death.  If you like a holding and it is a good fit for your investment objective long term, there is no need to get strategic about the capital gain. Assets held until death in taxable accounts receive a basis step-up to the value on the date of death. It’s a nice benefit to your heirs and serves as one instance where death and taxes are not actually linked as certainties in life.

Have you reviewed the cost basis of your holdings for accuracy?

Are there steps you can take to improve after-tax returns on your investments?

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

www.BHJadvisors.com

If you liked this post, please share it

Global stock market correlation increases risk

Correlation is a measure of how much or little investments move in sync with each other. Complete correlation is 1.0. Opposite correlation is -1.0.

To construct a truly diversified portfolio, it is preferred that holdings respond differently to various market conditions and economic cycles. If investments move together with high correlation, they offer less risk management.

Historically, non-U.S. stocks have added diversifying qualities to an overall investment portfolio because their correlation to U.S. stocks was not high. But that has changed significantly. While international stocks do provide access to different economies, currencies and sources of earnings, their performance pattern has become less distinguishable from U.S. stocks.

Consider this information from J.P. Morgan.

During the 2008 financial crisis, many investors realized that although a concentrated portfolio may build wealth, a diversified portfolio protects it. High correlations among volatile asset classes can rapidly reduce a portfolio’s value, and although equity correlations have remained elevated since the crisis ended, this is not a post-crisis phenomenon. As shown in this week’s chart, the correlation among international equity markets has been on an upward trend over the past 20 years, likely due to these markets becoming increasingly interlinked through technological advancement and easier investor access. Thus, given that markets remain macro-driven and average correlations are 5x higher today than in the mid 1990s, under-diversified investors could be at serious risk, once again making a strong case for taking a balanced and diversified approach to investing.

Source: MSCI, Standard & Poor’s, FactSet, J.P. Morgan Asset Management.

While we believe it is important to be a global investor, it is also important to include investments in your portfolio that are not highly correlated with global stocks. Using low correlation assets can be very important, particularly in times when global stocks are declining. Notice in the graphic that the peak of correlation among global stocks came at the height of the 2008-09 crisis, exactly when less correlation would have been most valuable.

Do you know what level of correlation your investments have to each other?

Is your portfolio built to buffer down-market risk more than chase all the return of bull markets?

What is your definition of diversification?

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Diversification does not guarantee investment returns and does not eliminate the risk of loss.

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

www.BHJadvisors.com

If you liked this post, please share it