Tag Archives: CFP

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

U.S. debt fuels flames of the “ring of fire”

The economy was front and center Wednesday night as President Obama and challenger Mitt Romney took the stage in Denver for the first debate of this election season. No doubt subsequent debates will center on other issues, but I suspect that the economy will be incorporated into every event because “it” is the subject of this election.

Yesterday a copy of this month’s Investment Outlook written by Bill Gross crossed my desk. Bill Gross, as many of you know, is the Founder (1971) and Managing Director of PIMCO mutual funds. He could be called a “bond guru” as he manages hundreds of billions of dollars that are invested in an assortment of bond instruments. His opinions are backed up by performance and experience. When he says, “I don’t believe in the imminent demise of the U.S. economy and its financial markets. But I’m afraid for them”… well this gets my attention.

Gross has been studying the annual reports of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Bank of International Settlements (BIS), which describe the financial balance sheets and prospective budgets of many nations. He compiled all three studies into one “ring of fire” illustration to show relative financial health of the various countries. In the relative healthy ring are Brazil, China, Mexico, Canada and Russia. In the unsustainable “ring of fire” are Spain, Greece, Great Britain, and…you guessed it, the United States. We are second only to Japan in the developed world.

To close this “fiscal gap” would require a combination of increased revenue and decreased spending amounting to $1.6 trillion per year. “We need to cut spending or raise taxes by 11% of GDP and rather quickly over the next five to ten years.” So far the President and Congress haven’t even been able to agree on a solution that arrived at one-fourth that amount. And if one were to add in the unfunded future liabilities posed by Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, the actual debt of the U.S. is a whopping four times higher than the $16 trillion we hear on the news.

To quote Gross, “the U.S … has been inhaling debt’s methamphetamine crystals for some time now, and kicking the habit looks incredibly difficult … If the fiscal gap isn’t closed even ever so gradually over the next few years … the damage would likely be beyond repair.”

The complete Investment Outlook including the graphic “ring of fire” is available here.

I sense we as a culture are facing a time of mutual sacrifice on the order of World War II. Every citizen is going to feel the pain for us to get out of this fiscal mess. It can be done. I’m listening to see if any of the candidates has the “nerve” to speak this truth. Our future depends on honest leadership. We as a people are up to it, but we don’t have the leisure of waiting. It is our turn at bat.

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

www.BHJadvisors.com

If you liked this post, please share it

Bonds less incredible than you think

Here is Gary Brooks’s column from the October 5 Tacoma News Tribune.

If you liked this post, please share it

GET unit price takes huge leap

As a follow-up to my September 8 column in The News Tribune (see below), here is some more detail about the new unit price to participate in Washington’s Guaranteed Education Tuition (GET)  program.

The 2011-12 purchase price for one GET unit is $163.  One hundred units is the equivalent of one year of tuition at a Washington state university (though the account value can be applied to any accredited institution of higher learning). I was conservative in the article suggesting that the new price would be north of $130, “possibly well beyond.” I didn’t want to present too shocking of a figure and have it turn out to be off base.  I wouldn’t have been surprised by $150 but $163 is a big leap. Of course, the price is dictated by a massive spike in tuition rates at Washington state schools.

Considering that the payout value for participants redeeming their GET units this year is $102.23, the new purchase price includes a 59% premium over today’s tuition rate. And if you buy units with a periodic payment plan that includes a 7.5% program fee, the premium you pay goes up to 66.5% over today’s actual tuition cost.

If tuition costs advanced at 8% per year, catching up with a 60% premium would require six years before you broke even. Therefore, you wouldn’t want to invest after your child was 12 years old if you intended to start redeeming units at 18. If units will be used over four years, you could actually invest beyond 12 and still expect to catch up with the premium before the student graduated. Since Washington state school tuition inflation has been closer to 16% than 8% over the past three years, the breakeven period would come quicker, just a little over three years.

The GET unit price for the 2008-09 enrollment period was $76. In four years, the cost has gone up 114.5%. Over the six years previous to 2008-09, GET units increased in price by just 46.15%.

The biggest challenge to the state will be generating enough new interest in the program so that the funding model remains viable. Investment returns alone will not support continued elevated tuition inflation. Over time, more new participants may be required to provide cash flow for students currently redeeming their units.

If the high price of GET units leads to fewer participants, the programs sustainability will be challenged.

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

If you liked this post, please share it

What we look for when picking a mutual fund

In theory, picking a good mutual fund should be easy. Just find a fund with an experienced portfolio manager who has consistently outperformed the fund’s relevant benchmark and buy some shares. Then repeat in each portion of the market so that you have a well-diversified investment mix.

In reality, while it’s possible to evaluate past performance and choose from funds that have peer-beating records, the more difficult job is to identify funds that have a high probability of continuing that performance. Performance is fleeting. Even funds that have performance among the best in their category may have built good returns on a small number of incredibly well-timed investments. Alternatively, some very good funds could have excellent long-term performance and good future positioning skewed by the impact of one or two investments that didn’t work in their favor.

Identifying funds with a repeatable process to add value beyond just buying the whole market is an ongoing and involved task.

A lot of things can change about a manager or a fund from year to year. We work to learn as much as we can about the manager or fund, so we are comfortable with its stability and understand how it will fit into our clients’ portfolios.

Important questions that we ask include:

  • How much of rising market returns does the manager earn and how much does the fund participate in declining markets? (Ideally, actively managed mutual funds capture most of – if not more than – a climbing market’s return and are able to avoid the full extent of downturns.)
  • How much flexibility does the manager have? (When we choose mutual funds, we generally prefer managers who are not constrained to invest only in a specific portion of the market regardless of whether it is in or out of favor at the time. We use exchange-traded index funds to get this inexpensive broad diversification instead.)
  • Have there been any changes to the manager or management team recently?  If so, how have those changes influenced the fund’s investment outlook or process?
  • How are decisions made to buy and sell a stock or bond?
  • Does the fund invest only in long-only positions in stocks or bonds or does it use derivative products to emphasize or de-emphasize certain exposures in the fund? (We’re not against fund managers who use of derivatives to some extent as long as the process and purpose are very transparent.)
  • Has the manager’s investment philosophy changed recently?
  • How much new money has been invested in the fund lately and has that affected either the number or the quality of holdings in the fund?
  • What have been the recent trends of the manager for underperforming or outperforming the fund’s relevant benchmark?  Why has this underperformance or outperformance occurred?
  • Have there been any changes to the basic characteristics of the fund?  Expense ratio, portfolio turnover, number of holdings, risk measures, etc.?
  • Does the fund have an institutional share class available so that we don’t have to pay the higher retail share class management fees? Or, can we aggregate client accounts to get into funds that otherwise would have an unapproachable minimum investment?
  • How will this fund fit in with the other funds in a client’s portfolio?  Are there other funds that could do a better job?
  • Is there a low-cost passively managed investment like an exchange traded fund that could be used in place of this fund which would provide similar investment returns?

How do we get this information?  Mostly through conference calls with the manager, reading annual and semi-annual reports for the fund, reviewing analyst’s reports and other third-party reviews.

This process doesn’t guarantee selection of the best future performance. In fact, we guarantee that in hindsight you will find better performers in every category over various time periods. But if the fund advances through our decision tree and we have high conviction in its expected returns compared to its known risks, then it makes the cut.

The worst thing we could do would be to constantly turn over our list of preferred funds in pursuit of the absolute best performance. It would create unnecessary reach for fractionally better results and drive up transaction costs.

That is not to say that we are not searching for new funds that offer attractive expected returns with better risk management. We certainly make changes. We just are not inclined to do it on a whim because a certain fund’s holdings were more in favor last quarter or last year.

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

If you liked this post, please share it

The Bond Market Conundrum of 2011 — Part II

Portfolio Management Preferences to Reduce Risk

LOOK BEYOND TREASURIES

U.S. investors have easy and relatively inexpensive access to a broader selection of bonds than they had in 1994.

  • Non-U.S. bonds provide U.S. investors access to different economic cycles, interest rates and currency values which can help reduce overall portfolio risk.
  • Floating rate bank loans are another portion of the bond market that actually do better in rising interest rate environments. These loans are very short term, resetting every 30-90 days.

High-yield corporate bonds (those below investment grade ratings) have historically performed much better than other bonds during periods of increasing interest rates.

Consider this research reported by Investment News writer Jeff Benjamin:

According to an analysis of the biggest interest rate moves over the 20-year period through June 2006, high-yield bonds are remarkably resilient against interest rate volatility. Between September 1987 and June 2006, there were six separate 12-month periods that saw the yield on the 10-year Treasury climb by between 117 and 222 basis points. The average total return of high-yield bonds for those same 12-month periods was 5.5%, with just one negative-return period.

THE TOUGHEST DECISION

If your investment mix currently includes a significant overweight to stocks, should you leave it that way or diversify to include bonds at a point when bond returns are not expected to be nearly as good as they have been over the past few decades?

While the potential to see the value of your bond holdings drop is discouraging, watching them decline perhaps a few percent should be much more palatable than watching a stock investment decline significantly more.

If global economic conditions receive any more shocks, it’s conceivable that U.S. and international stocks could return to a bear market, declining 20% or more. In this case, having some bond exposure creates downside protection in a broadly diversified investment mix. It may be a hollow victory for bonds if all they do is lose less, but their ability to steady a portfolio amid periods of stock volatility can be valuable.

Let’s not forget that since March 9, 2009, the U.S. stock market has been on an exceptional run. The S&P 500 Index gained 85.5% as of December 22. Small companies, as measured by the Russell 2000 Index gained 130.3%. A correction would not be surprising.

WHAT ABOUT MUNICIPAL BONDS?

The biggest fear in the municipal bond market isn’t so much interest rates as it is pure default by the municipality. Clearly, government entities at all levels are faced with significant deficits. Historically, municipal bond default rates have been very low, essentially not a concern expect in a few high profile cases (Orange County, CA, the WPPSS nuclear project here in Washington). Holding a diversified mix of many different types of municipal bonds can minimize default risk.

Many people assume that if cities or other municipal entities fail, the Federal Reserve will bail them out, saving value for bond holders. This could be the case but may serve to further bog down the economy.

Even if we see 50-100 imminent municipal defaults as Meredith Whitney forecast on 60 Minutes December 19, that is a small percentage of the overall municipal bond market. If your municipal bond exposure is in an actively managed mutual fund with an experienced analyst monitoring credit ratings, the default impact may not be all that significant.

IS CASH A BETTER BET?

Shifting the fixed income portion of your investment mix to cash comes with an opportunity cost. What if interest rates don’t move quickly and bonds continue to produce attractive total returns? What if U.S. interest rates increase slowly and bond returns decline moderately?

If your current bond holdings are in a portion of your portfolio that can’t take even a minor loss in the next two years, we think that this investment should be in cash. If you can afford to take a limited amount of risk, we think that concerns about bond declines may be overstated from a longer-term perspective. More importantly, cash holdings do not rally.

EXPECTATIONS ARE BUILT INTO MARKET PRICES

All investment markets are driven by future expectations. These expectations are already priced into stocks and bonds. Bond investors don’t generally expect the same tailwind that has filled their sails for most of the past generation. A less friendly headwind may already be evident in the price of bond funds.

WHY WE PREFER BOND MUTUAL FUNDS OVER INDIVIDUAL ISSUES

We feel more comfortable letting professional bond managers navigate the opportunity and pitfalls the market presents.  Bond fund managers spend their days building portfolios that are liquid, sensitive to the outlook for interest rates, and focused on managing the risks and returns for their investors.  Unless you are certain as an individual investor that you will hold individual bonds until they mature, receiving a payout of the bond’s face value, and that you have enough individual bonds to diversify away as many of the risks as possible, it is unlikely you will be able to outperform these professional  managers on an ongoing basis.

Considering the open issues and historical precedent, investors definitely need to ratchet down expectations for U.S. bond returns. But we don’t think you need to run away from U.S. bonds altogether. And your portfolio may be optimized by expanding to include international bonds.

Part I What Happens When Interest Rates Rise

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

If you liked this post, please share it

The Bond Market Conundrum of 2011 — Part I

What Happens When Interest Rates Rise

Given historically low U.S. interest rates, government stimulus efforts that seem likely to spark inflation and a massive flow of cash chasing returns, many investors think that it is not an ideal time to invest in U.S. bonds.

But does that mean that investors should move away from existing U.S. bonds holdings or avoid investing any new money in bonds?

U.S. bonds are not a compelling investment currently for a few reasons:

  • A very long bull market for bonds is running out of support from fundamental market factors that drive value
  • Massive cash inflow has flooded bond markets with buyers, driving prices up
  • Interest rates have nowhere to go but up, hurting bond prices

The interest rate concern seems to be the biggest, especially for investors who remember 1994 when many U.S. bond mutual funds lost money even after considering the income their bonds paid out.

Compounding the lack of clarity is the uncertainty of actual increases in interest rates. Bill Gross, manager of the PIMCO Total Return Fund, the largest bond mutual fund in the world, believes that the Federal Reserve will not be faced with a need to raise interest rates for at least another year, potentially well in to 2012. He is not alone in this assumption.

There’s also no telling how fast rates will rise once the economy seems healthy on its own unstimulated merits. Gross is far more worried about the economy and its impact on the U.S. stock and bond markets than he is on interest rate changes. Unemployment will have to come down and inflation will have to be more obvious before there is pressure to raise rates. If the recovery continues to be a jobless one, we could continue in our low interest rate environment for a long time.

It’s possible that short-term interest rates and long-term rates could take different paths. The Federal Reserve manipulates the economy and markets to influence short-term interest rates but the market itself has more influence on long-term interest rates.

Past bond market performance gives us an indication of what returns we may expect when interest rates rise (causing the value of many types of bonds to fall). The trouble is that previous cycles of climbing interest rates weren’t also paired with unemployment, deficits, an economy boosted by artificial stimulus, and political combativeness, all at the same time.

A REMINDER THAT BONDS CAN LOSE VALUE

In 1994, many investors thought that bonds would protect them from loss. This is true if you own individual bonds and hold them to maturity, collecting coupon payments along the way and retrieving the principal of the bond at maturity. But if you have to sell your bonds or the bond mutual fund you own sells bonds, they could be sold for less than their purchase price.

In February 1994, U.S. interest rates began a relatively swift climb. They increased from 3.0% to 6.0% in one year. In that time, the Vanguard Total Bond Market Index Fund had a total return of -1.51%. Declines in the price of the fund outweighed income paid out by the fund for a full year.

We don’t think that it is likely that once interest rates do begin to climb, that they will increase 3% in a year, but it is still a possible scenario.

A MORE LIKELY INCREASING RATES SCENARIO

It was just a few years ago that interest rates reached their most recent peak. In July 2004, interest rates climbed from 1.0% to 1.25%. They continued to climb until September 2007 when they peaked at 5.25%.

Bond mutual funds fared much better in this period than during 1994:

Fund Cumulative Total Return (income + price appreciation) from July 1, 2004 – Sept. 4, 2007
Barclays Aggregate Bond Index ETF 13.5%
Vanguard Total Bond Market Index Fund 14.19
Vanguard Long-Term Bond Market Index Fund 18.80
Vanguard Short-Term Bond Market Index Fund 11.69
iShares 1-3 year Treasury Bond ETF 11.03
PIMCO Total Return 16.44
Fidelity Strategic Income 25.99
Templeton Global Bond 39.36
Vanguard Total U.S. Stock Market Index Fund 42.41

This was not a period of exceptional bond returns. If you divide the cumulative total returns by three you get a rough annualized return. There were some reasonably good returns, particularly for non-Treasury bonds. Foreign bonds and corporate bonds in general that were not punished by the increasing interest rate environment.

Let’s take a closer look at the experience of the PIMCO Total Return Fund, managed by Gross. From July 1, 2004 through September 4, 2007, the fund had a price return of -2.24% but a total return of 16.44%.

If you invested $10,000 in this Fund, just as interest rates began to climb in July 2004 and reinvested dividends over the three years, the fund paid out $1,831.52. The negative price impact left the investment’s value at $11,605.72 on Sept. 4, 2007. While the total return is not significant, it did continue to outpace inflation. Reinvesting dividends also added 174 shares to the holding over the period, increasing future growth.

Certainly there are differences between our economic situation today and the previous two climbing-interest rate environments. We are coming out of a deeper recession and the market will have to deal with the impact of massive cash stimulus (quantitative easing) that was not a consideration in 1994 or 2004-07.

If we rewind the calendar for a full generation, back to 1973, we can see how the U.S. bond market performed in a wide variety of economic conditions, market expectations, and political changes.

In the 37 years since then, the Barclays U.S. Aggregate Bond Index has had a negative return over a calendar year three times (-2.91% in 1974, -2.92% in 1994 and -0.82% in 1999). The 37-year average annual return was 8.22%.

Part II Portfolio Management Preferences to Reduce Risk

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

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

If you liked this post, please share it

The Fiduciary Debate: Does Your Advisor Act in Your Best Interest?

Part of the recently signed financial reform bill addresses the fiduciary standard and how it applies to financial advisors.

Currently, Registered Investment Adviser (RIA) firms (like Brooks, Hughes & Jones) are obligated to act as a fiduciary. This means we must make recommendations and provide advice that is solely in the client’s best interest.

Many other advisors, primarily employed by brokerage firms that spend billions on advertising and lobbying –Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Edward Jones, etc. – currently have to meet only a suitability standard. This means that products they sell should be suitable for the client, given known information about the client. But they don’t have to be unquestionably in the client’s best interest.

The House of Representatives version of the financial reform bill required all financial advisors to operate from the fiduciary standard. Under heavy influence, however, it was amended before signing. What is written into the bill is the authority for the Securities and Exchange Commission to apply the fiduciary standard to all, but not until the SEC completes a six-month review of the subject.

Since Congress failed to fully approve the fiduciary standard, it’s not hard to imagine brokerage firms successfully lobbying the SEC to maintain status quo.

When this study is completed, the SEC will be able to draft its own rules around who is required to act as a fiduciary.  As it stands now, brokers would have a two-tiered fiduciary responsibility.  If they provide specific, personalized advice, they would have to act as fiduciaries.  After they provide this advice, they will no longer be fully subject to a continuing standard in future investment recommendations.  This means that a broker’s allegiance could change depending on the situation.

In the current bill, the SEC may also allow brokers to sell a limited range of products (even proprietary) provided they give notice to the customer and obtain consent or acknowledgement.

What it comes down to is paying an investment advisor or financial planner for advice or paying a registered representative to sell a suitable product. The difference may be subtle to most but represents a substantial difference in independence, objectivity and understanding of whose side the “advisor” is really on.

There are certainly many good financial professionals who work for wirehouse brokerage firms. And there are RIAs and CFPs who have done wrong. However, given the opportunity to work with the highest standard of stewardship for your life savings, you may want to consider the meaning of the word fiduciary and look for an advisor willing to operate from its definition in all matters.

We’ll closely follow the SEC’s six-month review and follow-up then.

If you liked this post, please share it