The current renewed volatility in financial markets is reviving unwelcome feelings among many investors—feelings of anxiety, fear, and a sense of powerlessness. These are completely natural responses. Acting on those emotions, though, can end up doing us more harm than good.
At base, the increase in market volatility is an expression of uncertainty. The sovereign debt strains in the US and Europe, together with renewed worries over financial institutions and fears of another recession, are leading market participants to apply a higher discount to risky assets. It is all reminiscent of the events of 2008, when the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the sub-prime mortgage crisis triggered a global market correction. This time, however, the focus of concern has turned from private-sector to public-sector balance sheets.
As for what happens next, no one knows for sure. That is the nature of risk. But there are a few points individual investors can keep in mind to make living with this volatility more bearable.
Markets are unpredictable and do not always react the way the experts predict they will. The recent downgrade by Standard & Poor's of the US government's credit rating, following protracted and painful negotiations on extending its debt ceiling, actually led to a strengthening in Treasury bonds.
Quitting the equity market at a time like this is like running away from a sale. While prices have been discounted to reflect higher risk, that's another way of saying expected returns are higher. And while the media headlines proclaim that "investors are dumping stocks," remember someone is buying them. Those people are often the long-term investors.
Market recoveries can come just as quickly and just as violently as the prior correction. For instance, in March 2009—when market sentiment was last this bad—the S&P 500 turned and put in seven consecutive months of gains. A little over a year after the low, gains had totaled almost 80%. This is not to predict that a similarly vertically shaped recovery is in the cards this time, but it is a reminder of the dangers for long-term investors of turning paper losses into real ones and paying for the risk without waiting around for the recovery.
Never forget the power of diversification. While equity markets have had a rocky time in 2011, fixed income markets have flourished—making the overall losses to balanced fund investors a little more bearable. Diversification spreads risk and can lessen the bumps in the road.
Markets and economies are different things. The world economy is forever changing, and new forces are replacing old ones. For example, the IMF noted in its April 2011 World Economic Outlook that while advanced economies seek to repair public and financial balance sheets, emerging market economies are thriving. A globally diversified portfolio takes account of these shifts.
Nothing lasts forever. Just as smart investors temper their enthusiasm in booms, they keep a reserve of optimism during busts. And just as loading up on risk when prices are high can leave you exposed to a correction, dumping risk altogether when prices are low means you can miss the turn when it comes. As always in life, moderation is a good policy.
The market volatility is worrisome, no doubt. The feelings being generated are completely understandable. But through discipline, diversification, and understanding how markets work, the ride can be made bearable. At some point, value will re-emerge, risk appetites will re-awaken, and for those who acknowledged their emotions without acting on them, relief will replace anxiety.
Adapted from “Living with Volatility” by Jim Parker, Outside the Flags column on Dimensional’s website, August 9, 2011. This information is for educational purposes only and should not be considered investment advice or an offer of any security for sale.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
The Debt Ceiling and the Road Ahead
After all the debate in recent weeks over issues related to raising the nation's debt limit, it's hard to know exactly what might happen after August 2. Borrowing represents more than 40% of the nation's expenses, and any default on the country's obligations would be unprecedented.
As a rule, panic generally doesn't help you make wise financial decisions. That's why now might be a good time to review your portfolio to see if you have more exposure to a particular asset class than you'd prefer, regardless of what happens in Washington. And as the situation evolves, here are some mileposts that bear watching:
Auctions of Treasury securitiesThe yield on the 10-year Treasury note can serve as a barometer of anxiety levels; the higher the yield goes, the more bond prices will fall, indicating increasing anxiety in the bond markets.
Regardless of whether the debt ceiling stays the same, several significant auctions of Treasury securities are scheduled shortly after the August 2 deadline. Bids for 3- and 10-year notes and 30-year bonds will begin on August 3, and auctions will take place August 9-11. More importantly, the nonprofit Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) estimates that payment of roughly $90 billion on maturing Treasury securities is due on August 4.
The difficulty in producing an agreement to raise the limit has led two major credit rating agencies to announce they are officially reviewing the United States' historically impeccable credit rating. Even if the Treasury attempts to avoid defaulting on Treasury securities by prioritizing payment of its obligations, the rating agencies have warned that any such move would likely trigger a downgrade, especially if no consensus has been reached on how to tackle the deficit.
A lowered credit rating would mean the United States would have to pay more to borrow in the future, making the national debt problem even worse in the long term. That's because the greater uncertainty about the country's willingness and ability to pay its bills would likely lead both domestic and foreign investors to demand greater compensation for buying Treasuries.
Bonds and non-Treasury borrowingHigher interest rates for Treasury bonds might also result in higher interest rates on other, nongovernmental loans such as mortgages and consumer credit. Since many interest rates are based on Treasury rates, rates generally would likely be affected. And since bond prices fall when rates rise, you should keep an eye on your bond portfolio.
One indicator of investors' assessment of the risks of Treasury bonds compared to other debt is what's known as the Baa/Treasury spread, which measures the difference between the yields of corporate bonds rated Baa and 10-year Treasuries. Normally, investors demand a higher yield for corporates because of their greater risk of default. The narrower the gap between the two, the less risky investors feel corporate bonds are compared to Treasuries.
Higher rates also could mean reduced credit availability. Some observers worry that tighter credit on top of a weak housing market could hamper economic recovery. And even if there were technically no default, the mere absence of an agreement that addresses the issue before August 2 would likely raise the global anxiety level substantially.
EquitiesThe stock market hates uncertainty, and the greater the uncertainty, the greater the potential impact on stocks. If investors become concerned about the availability of credit, they could punish companies that rely heavily on it. Fortunately, in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, many companies took advantage of low interest rates to issue new bonds and/or refinance older debt. Also, many companies, fearing a sequel to 2008, have been sitting on a larger amount of cash than usual, which could help cushion the impact of tighter credit.
Markets also will be assessing the impact of either severe budgetary cutbacks or prioritization of existing government bills on the already fragile economy as a whole. If either seems to pose a serious threat to consumer spending, equities could feel the fallout.
Payment of government benefits, contracts, and departmentsAccording to the BPC, the country will have roughly $172.4 billion coming in during the rest of August to pay $306.7 billion of scheduled expenditures. Without an increase in the borrowing limit, the Treasury will have to rely on those revenues and prioritize which of its existing bills to pay. Here are some of the major payments scheduled for shortly after the Treasury's August 2 deadline:
Social Security payments for beneficiaries who began receiving benefits before May 1997 or who receive both benefits and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) are scheduled for August 3. Benefits for recipients with birth dates between August 1-10 are scheduled for the following Wednesday, August 10. Those with birth dates between the 11th and the 20th are scheduled for August 17, and August 24 is the date for birthdays between the 21st and the 31st.
For military service members, August 15 is the date for the scheduled mid-month installment of active duty pay, with the associated "advice of pay" notice set for August 5. And as previously noted, an estimated $90 billion in Treasury debt payments are due August 4.
Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security benefits, defense vendor payments, interest on Treasury securities, and unemployment insurance represent some of the federal government's largest costs for the month. The BPC estimates that covering those costs completely would leave no funds for such obligations as the Departments of Education, Labor, Justice, and Energy; federal salaries and benefits; military active duty pay and veterans' affairs; the Federal Transit Administration, Federal Highway Administration, Small Business Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency; Housing and Urban Development and federal food and nutrition services; and IRS refunds.
The outlook for an agreementPlans have been put forward to tie increases in the debt ceiling to a balanced budget constitutional amendment, to specific spending cuts, and to a combination of spending cuts and revenue increases. There also has been talk of a fail-safe plan that would give the president authority to increase the debt ceiling in stages before the 2012 election; Congress would be able to vote against those increases but would not be able to effectively prevent them.
One proposal that seems to have a chance of winning at least some bipartisan support is based on months of negotiations by the "Gang of Six" senators from both parties. The proposal is designed to cut an estimated $3.7 trillion from the deficit over 10 years through such measures as shrinking the current six tax brackets to three, eliminating the alternative minimum tax, revising how Social Security cost-of-living increases are calculated, and reducing tax deductions for such items as mortgage interest, charitable donations, and retirement savings.
All parties have agreed it's important not to jeopardize the country's financial health. As the road to a resolution unwinds, it can be helpful to keep calm and monitor the situation.
All investing involves risk, including the risk of loss of principal, and there can be no guarantee that any investment strategy will be successful.
As a rule, panic generally doesn't help you make wise financial decisions. That's why now might be a good time to review your portfolio to see if you have more exposure to a particular asset class than you'd prefer, regardless of what happens in Washington. And as the situation evolves, here are some mileposts that bear watching:
Auctions of Treasury securitiesThe yield on the 10-year Treasury note can serve as a barometer of anxiety levels; the higher the yield goes, the more bond prices will fall, indicating increasing anxiety in the bond markets.
Regardless of whether the debt ceiling stays the same, several significant auctions of Treasury securities are scheduled shortly after the August 2 deadline. Bids for 3- and 10-year notes and 30-year bonds will begin on August 3, and auctions will take place August 9-11. More importantly, the nonprofit Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) estimates that payment of roughly $90 billion on maturing Treasury securities is due on August 4.
The difficulty in producing an agreement to raise the limit has led two major credit rating agencies to announce they are officially reviewing the United States' historically impeccable credit rating. Even if the Treasury attempts to avoid defaulting on Treasury securities by prioritizing payment of its obligations, the rating agencies have warned that any such move would likely trigger a downgrade, especially if no consensus has been reached on how to tackle the deficit.
A lowered credit rating would mean the United States would have to pay more to borrow in the future, making the national debt problem even worse in the long term. That's because the greater uncertainty about the country's willingness and ability to pay its bills would likely lead both domestic and foreign investors to demand greater compensation for buying Treasuries.
Bonds and non-Treasury borrowingHigher interest rates for Treasury bonds might also result in higher interest rates on other, nongovernmental loans such as mortgages and consumer credit. Since many interest rates are based on Treasury rates, rates generally would likely be affected. And since bond prices fall when rates rise, you should keep an eye on your bond portfolio.
One indicator of investors' assessment of the risks of Treasury bonds compared to other debt is what's known as the Baa/Treasury spread, which measures the difference between the yields of corporate bonds rated Baa and 10-year Treasuries. Normally, investors demand a higher yield for corporates because of their greater risk of default. The narrower the gap between the two, the less risky investors feel corporate bonds are compared to Treasuries.
Higher rates also could mean reduced credit availability. Some observers worry that tighter credit on top of a weak housing market could hamper economic recovery. And even if there were technically no default, the mere absence of an agreement that addresses the issue before August 2 would likely raise the global anxiety level substantially.
EquitiesThe stock market hates uncertainty, and the greater the uncertainty, the greater the potential impact on stocks. If investors become concerned about the availability of credit, they could punish companies that rely heavily on it. Fortunately, in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, many companies took advantage of low interest rates to issue new bonds and/or refinance older debt. Also, many companies, fearing a sequel to 2008, have been sitting on a larger amount of cash than usual, which could help cushion the impact of tighter credit.
Markets also will be assessing the impact of either severe budgetary cutbacks or prioritization of existing government bills on the already fragile economy as a whole. If either seems to pose a serious threat to consumer spending, equities could feel the fallout.
Payment of government benefits, contracts, and departmentsAccording to the BPC, the country will have roughly $172.4 billion coming in during the rest of August to pay $306.7 billion of scheduled expenditures. Without an increase in the borrowing limit, the Treasury will have to rely on those revenues and prioritize which of its existing bills to pay. Here are some of the major payments scheduled for shortly after the Treasury's August 2 deadline:
Social Security payments for beneficiaries who began receiving benefits before May 1997 or who receive both benefits and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) are scheduled for August 3. Benefits for recipients with birth dates between August 1-10 are scheduled for the following Wednesday, August 10. Those with birth dates between the 11th and the 20th are scheduled for August 17, and August 24 is the date for birthdays between the 21st and the 31st.
For military service members, August 15 is the date for the scheduled mid-month installment of active duty pay, with the associated "advice of pay" notice set for August 5. And as previously noted, an estimated $90 billion in Treasury debt payments are due August 4.
Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security benefits, defense vendor payments, interest on Treasury securities, and unemployment insurance represent some of the federal government's largest costs for the month. The BPC estimates that covering those costs completely would leave no funds for such obligations as the Departments of Education, Labor, Justice, and Energy; federal salaries and benefits; military active duty pay and veterans' affairs; the Federal Transit Administration, Federal Highway Administration, Small Business Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency; Housing and Urban Development and federal food and nutrition services; and IRS refunds.
The outlook for an agreementPlans have been put forward to tie increases in the debt ceiling to a balanced budget constitutional amendment, to specific spending cuts, and to a combination of spending cuts and revenue increases. There also has been talk of a fail-safe plan that would give the president authority to increase the debt ceiling in stages before the 2012 election; Congress would be able to vote against those increases but would not be able to effectively prevent them.
One proposal that seems to have a chance of winning at least some bipartisan support is based on months of negotiations by the "Gang of Six" senators from both parties. The proposal is designed to cut an estimated $3.7 trillion from the deficit over 10 years through such measures as shrinking the current six tax brackets to three, eliminating the alternative minimum tax, revising how Social Security cost-of-living increases are calculated, and reducing tax deductions for such items as mortgage interest, charitable donations, and retirement savings.
All parties have agreed it's important not to jeopardize the country's financial health. As the road to a resolution unwinds, it can be helpful to keep calm and monitor the situation.
All investing involves risk, including the risk of loss of principal, and there can be no guarantee that any investment strategy will be successful.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Discipline: Your Secret Weapon
Working with markets, understanding risk and return, diversifying and portfolio structure—we've heard the lessons of sound investing over and over. But so often the most important factor between success and failure is ourselves.
The recent rocky period in financial markets has brought to the surface some familiar emotions for many, including a strong urge to try to time the market. The temptation, as always, is to sell into falling markets and buy into rising ones.
What's more, the most seemingly "well-informed" people—the kind who religiously read the financial press and watch business television—are the ones who feel most compelled to try and finesse their exit and entry points.
This suspicion that "sophisticated" investors are the most prone to try and outwit the market was given validity recently by a study, carried out by London-based Ledbury Research, of more than 2,000 affluent people around the world.(1)
The survey found 40 per cent of those questioned admitted to practising market timing rather than pursuing a buy-and-hold strategy. Yet the market timers were more than three times more likely to believe they traded too much.
"On the face of it, you might think that those who were trading more actively would be more experienced, sophisticated and able to control themselves," the authors said. "But that seems not to be the case—trading becomes addictive."
This perspective has been reinforced recently by one of the world's most respected policymakers and astute observers of markets—Ian Macfarlane, the former governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia and now a director of ANZ Banking Group.
In a speech in Sydney(2), Macfarlane made the point that the worst investors tend to be those who follow markets and the financial media fanatically, extrapolating from short-term movements big picture narratives that fit their predispositions.
"Most people experience loss aversion," he said. "They experience more unhappiness from losing $100 than they gain in happiness from acquiring $100. So the more often they are made aware of a loss, the unhappier they become."
Because of this combination of hyper-activity, lack of self-control and loss-aversion, investors end up making bad investment decisions, Macfarlane noted.
These behavioural issues and how they impact on investors are well documented by financial theorists. Commonly cited traits include lack of diversification, excessive trading, an obstinate reluctance to sell losers and buying on past performance.(3)
Mostly, these traits stem from over-confidence. Just as we all tend to think we are above-average in terms of driving ability, we also tend to over-rate our capacity for beating the market. What's more, this ego-driven behaviour has been shown to be more prevalent in men than in women.
A study quoted in The Wall Street Journal(4) showed women are less afflicted than men by over-confidence and are more likely to attribute success in investment to factors outside themselves – like luck or fate. As a result, they are more inclined to exercise self-discipline and to avoid trying to time the market.
The virtues of investment discipline and the folly of 'alpha'-chasing are highlighted year after year in the survey of investor behaviour by research group Dalbar. The latest edition showed in the 20 years to the end of December 2010, the average US stock investor received annualised returns of just 3.8 per cent, well below the 9.1 per cent delivered by the market index, the S&P 500.(5)
What often stops investors getting returns that are there for the taking are their very own actions—lack of diversification, compulsive trading, buying high, selling low, going by hunches and responding to media and market noise.
So how do we get our egos and emotions out of the investment process? One answer is to distance ourselves from the daily noise by appointing a financial advisor to help stop us doing things against our own long-term interests.
An advisor begins with the understanding that there are things we can't control (like the ups and downs in the markets) and things we can. Some of the things we can control including ensuring our investments are properly diversified—both within and across asset classes—ensuring our portfolios are regularly rebalanced to meet our long-term requirements, keeping costs to a minimum and being mindful of taxes.
Most of all, an advisor helps us all by encouraging the exercise of discipline—the secret weapon in building long-term wealth.
1. 'Risk and Rules: The Role of Control in Financial Decision Making', Barclays Wealth, June 2011
2. 'Far Too Much Economic News for Our Own Good', Ross Gittins, Sydney Morning Herald, June 13, 2011
3. Barberis, Nicholas and Thaler, Richard, 'A Survey of Behavioral Finance', University of Chicago
4. 'For Mother's Day, Give Her the Reins to the Portfolio', Wall Street Journal, May 9, 2009
5. '2011 QAIB', Dalbar Inc, March 2011
The recent rocky period in financial markets has brought to the surface some familiar emotions for many, including a strong urge to try to time the market. The temptation, as always, is to sell into falling markets and buy into rising ones.
What's more, the most seemingly "well-informed" people—the kind who religiously read the financial press and watch business television—are the ones who feel most compelled to try and finesse their exit and entry points.
This suspicion that "sophisticated" investors are the most prone to try and outwit the market was given validity recently by a study, carried out by London-based Ledbury Research, of more than 2,000 affluent people around the world.(1)
The survey found 40 per cent of those questioned admitted to practising market timing rather than pursuing a buy-and-hold strategy. Yet the market timers were more than three times more likely to believe they traded too much.
"On the face of it, you might think that those who were trading more actively would be more experienced, sophisticated and able to control themselves," the authors said. "But that seems not to be the case—trading becomes addictive."
This perspective has been reinforced recently by one of the world's most respected policymakers and astute observers of markets—Ian Macfarlane, the former governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia and now a director of ANZ Banking Group.
In a speech in Sydney(2), Macfarlane made the point that the worst investors tend to be those who follow markets and the financial media fanatically, extrapolating from short-term movements big picture narratives that fit their predispositions.
"Most people experience loss aversion," he said. "They experience more unhappiness from losing $100 than they gain in happiness from acquiring $100. So the more often they are made aware of a loss, the unhappier they become."
Because of this combination of hyper-activity, lack of self-control and loss-aversion, investors end up making bad investment decisions, Macfarlane noted.
These behavioural issues and how they impact on investors are well documented by financial theorists. Commonly cited traits include lack of diversification, excessive trading, an obstinate reluctance to sell losers and buying on past performance.(3)
Mostly, these traits stem from over-confidence. Just as we all tend to think we are above-average in terms of driving ability, we also tend to over-rate our capacity for beating the market. What's more, this ego-driven behaviour has been shown to be more prevalent in men than in women.
A study quoted in The Wall Street Journal(4) showed women are less afflicted than men by over-confidence and are more likely to attribute success in investment to factors outside themselves – like luck or fate. As a result, they are more inclined to exercise self-discipline and to avoid trying to time the market.
The virtues of investment discipline and the folly of 'alpha'-chasing are highlighted year after year in the survey of investor behaviour by research group Dalbar. The latest edition showed in the 20 years to the end of December 2010, the average US stock investor received annualised returns of just 3.8 per cent, well below the 9.1 per cent delivered by the market index, the S&P 500.(5)
What often stops investors getting returns that are there for the taking are their very own actions—lack of diversification, compulsive trading, buying high, selling low, going by hunches and responding to media and market noise.
So how do we get our egos and emotions out of the investment process? One answer is to distance ourselves from the daily noise by appointing a financial advisor to help stop us doing things against our own long-term interests.
An advisor begins with the understanding that there are things we can't control (like the ups and downs in the markets) and things we can. Some of the things we can control including ensuring our investments are properly diversified—both within and across asset classes—ensuring our portfolios are regularly rebalanced to meet our long-term requirements, keeping costs to a minimum and being mindful of taxes.
Most of all, an advisor helps us all by encouraging the exercise of discipline—the secret weapon in building long-term wealth.
1. 'Risk and Rules: The Role of Control in Financial Decision Making', Barclays Wealth, June 2011
2. 'Far Too Much Economic News for Our Own Good', Ross Gittins, Sydney Morning Herald, June 13, 2011
3. Barberis, Nicholas and Thaler, Richard, 'A Survey of Behavioral Finance', University of Chicago
4. 'For Mother's Day, Give Her the Reins to the Portfolio', Wall Street Journal, May 9, 2009
5. '2011 QAIB', Dalbar Inc, March 2011
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Stars or Straws?
Investors frequently seek external validation to ease the anxiety of putting their money at risk. Problem is there is no guarantee that a "five-star" rating on a chosen fund will lead to a "five-star" investment experience.
It is human nature for consumers to seek comfort in the idea that the products they are buying are proven in the marketplace. That need is met by ratings agencies that play a legitimate and vital role in providing independent assessments of various investment products.
Those assessments are made in professionally compiled and detailed reports that can be a useful yardstick for investors and their advisors in comparing funds so that they can make a fully informed decision.
But despite diligent cautions from the agencies about chasing returns, problems arise when consumers blindly extrapolate star rating systems for various funds into imagined future performance.
The risks of this approach were highlighted in a survey by US private wealth management business Burns Advisory Group, which went back to 1999 to study the subsequent 10-year performance of Morningstar's five-star funds.(1)
Burns found that of the 248 funds rated five-star by Morningstar on December 31, 1999, only four were still receiving that rating a decade later. Of the original sample, 87 had ceased to exist. Of those still existing, all had been downgraded to an average of just under three stars. Even worse, in all categories except international stocks, the average performance for five-star funds over this 10-year period was worse than the average for all funds.
"These findings imply the star ranking methodology leaves long-term investors in the lurch," Burns concluded. "If nothing else, it demonstrates clearly why investors should not rely on one measure as their sole research tool."
But it is not just unsophisticated investors that are chasing performance. Another recent report suggests that even wealthy individuals and institutional investors can be blind-sided by past returns.
The study by researchers at the European School of Management and Technology, quoted in The Economist magazine, looked at how investors allocated money to hedge funds over 10 years from 1994.(2)
The researchers found that the funds that had performed well in the previous three quarters attracted significantly more money than their competitors. In other words, the supposedly "smart money" was chasing past returns.
Bear in mind, also, that indiscriminately chasing returns can be even more costly with hedge funds, which typically charge management fees of 2% or more, plus 20% of the returns they generate for clients.
Given the large body of academic evidence that it is extremely difficult to predict market returns with any confidence, it should be evident that past returns should not be the foundation for choosing one fund over another.
Leading academics Gene Fama and Ken French, in a recent study of mutual fund performance, showed how hard it is for investors to distinguish skill from pure chance in analysing the returns of individual funds.(3)
So what should an investor and his or her advisor weigh up in making a decision? The key here is to focus on items within their control, such as:
•Are the risks being taken related to return?
•Are those risks targeted in a reliable, consistent way?
•How diversified is the fund?
•Does it make promises it can't keep?
•What is more important - individual judgement or clear processes?
•Are the underlying strategies driven by forecasts?
•Does the fund take account of costs and taxes in its decisions?
•Does the fund manager communicate in a clear and consistent way?
While many of these attributes can lead to good outcomes for investors, they are no guarantee of positive returns every year. Anyone who makes those sorts of promises risks disillusioning those who put their faith in them.
But the above characteristics can give investors comfort that their money is being invested in a consistent, transparent way and that ensures that when the targeted premiums kick in, they are positioned to receive them.
This is a grounded, completely defensible approach. The alternative is that by reaching for the stars, investors are left clutching at straws.
1. McGuigan, Tom and Courtenay, Tim, Star Gazing: Five Star Funds Revisited, Burns Advisory Group, April 2010
2. Buttonwood, Who's the Patsy?, The Economist, May 29, 2010
3. Fama, Eugene F., and Kenneth R. French. 2009. Luck Versus Skill in the Cross Section of Mutual Fund Returns, SSRN
It is human nature for consumers to seek comfort in the idea that the products they are buying are proven in the marketplace. That need is met by ratings agencies that play a legitimate and vital role in providing independent assessments of various investment products.
Those assessments are made in professionally compiled and detailed reports that can be a useful yardstick for investors and their advisors in comparing funds so that they can make a fully informed decision.
But despite diligent cautions from the agencies about chasing returns, problems arise when consumers blindly extrapolate star rating systems for various funds into imagined future performance.
The risks of this approach were highlighted in a survey by US private wealth management business Burns Advisory Group, which went back to 1999 to study the subsequent 10-year performance of Morningstar's five-star funds.(1)
Burns found that of the 248 funds rated five-star by Morningstar on December 31, 1999, only four were still receiving that rating a decade later. Of the original sample, 87 had ceased to exist. Of those still existing, all had been downgraded to an average of just under three stars. Even worse, in all categories except international stocks, the average performance for five-star funds over this 10-year period was worse than the average for all funds.
"These findings imply the star ranking methodology leaves long-term investors in the lurch," Burns concluded. "If nothing else, it demonstrates clearly why investors should not rely on one measure as their sole research tool."
But it is not just unsophisticated investors that are chasing performance. Another recent report suggests that even wealthy individuals and institutional investors can be blind-sided by past returns.
The study by researchers at the European School of Management and Technology, quoted in The Economist magazine, looked at how investors allocated money to hedge funds over 10 years from 1994.(2)
The researchers found that the funds that had performed well in the previous three quarters attracted significantly more money than their competitors. In other words, the supposedly "smart money" was chasing past returns.
Bear in mind, also, that indiscriminately chasing returns can be even more costly with hedge funds, which typically charge management fees of 2% or more, plus 20% of the returns they generate for clients.
Given the large body of academic evidence that it is extremely difficult to predict market returns with any confidence, it should be evident that past returns should not be the foundation for choosing one fund over another.
Leading academics Gene Fama and Ken French, in a recent study of mutual fund performance, showed how hard it is for investors to distinguish skill from pure chance in analysing the returns of individual funds.(3)
So what should an investor and his or her advisor weigh up in making a decision? The key here is to focus on items within their control, such as:
•Are the risks being taken related to return?
•Are those risks targeted in a reliable, consistent way?
•How diversified is the fund?
•Does it make promises it can't keep?
•What is more important - individual judgement or clear processes?
•Are the underlying strategies driven by forecasts?
•Does the fund take account of costs and taxes in its decisions?
•Does the fund manager communicate in a clear and consistent way?
While many of these attributes can lead to good outcomes for investors, they are no guarantee of positive returns every year. Anyone who makes those sorts of promises risks disillusioning those who put their faith in them.
But the above characteristics can give investors comfort that their money is being invested in a consistent, transparent way and that ensures that when the targeted premiums kick in, they are positioned to receive them.
This is a grounded, completely defensible approach. The alternative is that by reaching for the stars, investors are left clutching at straws.
1. McGuigan, Tom and Courtenay, Tim, Star Gazing: Five Star Funds Revisited, Burns Advisory Group, April 2010
2. Buttonwood, Who's the Patsy?, The Economist, May 29, 2010
3. Fama, Eugene F., and Kenneth R. French. 2009. Luck Versus Skill in the Cross Section of Mutual Fund Returns, SSRN
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Municipal Bond Worries
In 2010, prominent industry analysts warned of a looming fiscal crisis among state and local governments. Some experts even predicted widespread municipal bond defaults in the US.1 Investor fears intensified in late 2010 when the municipal bond market experienced one of its largest selloffs in decades, which drove down prices and raised yields.2 While factors unrelated to credit concerns may have contributed to the selloff, some investors were motivated by a perception of rising credit risk among municipal bond issues.3
So, is the municipal bond market at risk of massive default? No one knows—and we are not in the prediction business. But your view probably depends on your economic expectations and familiarity with the municipal bond market. With this in mind, consider these principles:
• The municipal bond market is large and diverse. The media often report on municipal bond problems as though the market is a single, uniform sector. In reality, the market comprises an estimated $3 trillion in debt, with over 50,000 state and local issuers and about two million outstanding issues. These bonds are rated across a broad spectrum of credit categories and have different characteristics and structures for paying their obligations. Such complexity does not afford simple observations about the market.
• Historical default rates are low. Muni bonds have a strong track record of repayment. One reason is that state and local governments are motivated to avoid default since failure to pay affects their ability to raise capital in the future. Another reason is that most issues repay investors from either project revenues or from a general fund backed by the taxing power of the issuer. Chart 1 shows bond default rates in the US from 1970 to 2008. There have been no defaults in the top-rated investment grade tier (Aaa/AAA). Most defaults are limited to the non-investment grade universe.
Chart 1: Bond Default Rates—Cumulative Percent (1970-2008)
• Most fiscal problems are concentrated in a few large states. An estimated 58% of the recent budget shortfalls have occurred in five states: Arizona, California, Illinois, New York, and Texas.4 However, operating budgets deal with short-term revenues and costs, while municipal bond debt represents long-term borrowing to fund infrastructure projects (e.g., roads, bridges, schools, water systems, and hospitals). Moreover, current levels of state and local government debt, as well as interest payments on that debt, remain well within the historical range.5 Of course, many states are also wrestling with unfunded pension liabilities that may ultimately impact their budgets, but these tend to be longer term obligations as well.
• Municipal bonds are assessed according to actual financials, not models or projections. Some reports have compared the municipal bond market to the subprime mortgage securities market prior to the financial crisis. The circumstances are different. For one, state and local issuers are subject to financial disclosure rules, and the information they provide affects the market prices and credit ratings of their bonds. Also, municipal bonds are not exotic instruments with complex structures that obscure the underlying credit rating and market value of the assets.6 While municipal bond reporting is not as timely or thorough as reporting on corporate debt, investors hold an instrument that is more transparent than the mortgage derivatives that helped spark the financial crisis.
• Current market conditions do not imply unusually high risk. The market incorporates information and expectations into prices, including perceived risk, as illustrated by rising bond yields during the financial crisis and in the recent municipal market selloff. However, since the start of the recession in November 2007, average yields for the AAA-, AA-, and BBB-rated municipal securities have fallen.7 Also, total market volume as measured by total number of trades has been generally flat over the last three-year period.8
Risk Management Issues
Investors should always consider ways to manage risk in their fixed income portfolios. Here are a few guiding principles:
• Hold shorter-term issues. This approach may help reduce volatility and credit risk while enhancing liquidity. Also, fixed income investors who hold investment grade bonds must also consider their exposure to changes in interest rates. Bond prices move in the opposite direction of interest rate changes—and the longer a bond’s maturity, the greater its price change.
• Stay broadly diversified. Holding many municipal bond issues and avoiding concentration in a particular state, sector, or issue type can help reduce the impact of a few non-performing bonds. If default rates were to rise, investors with a well-diversified municipal portfolio should be less exposed.
• Focus on quality and use market pricing to confirm credit ratings. The most creditworthy bonds are those rated AAA or AA, and most of the current problems involve lower-rated bonds. Although ratings are useful, recent history in the mortgage-backed securities market has shown that a bond may not be rated accurately. A bond that is rated AAA should trade in a similar price range to other bonds with similar characteristics and a comparable rating.
Portfolio Decisions
Investors can either hold a portfolio of individual municipal bonds or buy shares in a fund. Building a portfolio of individual bonds offers more direct control over maturity, face value, bond type, credit range, and other issue characteristics. This approach may be useful for matching future liabilities and pursuing other investment objectives. But achieving broad diversification with a custom portfolio may prove a challenge, and the portfolio may be illiquid and expensive to trade, and require more attention and oversight than is feasible for an individual.
Investors often favor professional fund management for many reasons, including those specific to the way the bond market operates. Since bonds are traded through a network of dealers and not a centralized exchange, price discovery may not be easy. Muni bonds also tend to be illiquid since only about 0.7% of the market is traded daily (i.e., only 14,000 out of 2 million issues). These market realities result in high transaction costs. In fact, research shows that municipal bond trades are significantly more expensive than equity trades of equal size.9
Professional managers should have better access to multiple dealers and have the capacity for large- volume trades, which renders a cost advantage over smaller investors. Funds also offer better liquidity and broader diversification across issue type, maturity, credit quality, and geography. A shareholder can access daily share price and know the average credit rating within the portfolio. Equally important, managers should monitor average yields at different maturities, qualities, and regions to gauge the relative riskiness of different issues.
On the downside, managed funds can lose value and shareholders do not control the selection of bonds in the portfolio.
Fixed income securities are subject to increased loss of principal during periods of rising interest rates. Fixed income investments are subject to various other risks, including changes in credit quality, market valuations, liquidity, prepayments, early redemption, corporate events, tax ramifications, and other factors. Municipal securities are subject to the risks of adverse economic and regulatory changes in their issuing states.
All expressions of opinion are subject to change without notice in reaction to shifting market conditions. This article is distributed for informational purposes, and it is not to be construed as an offer, solicitation, recommendation, or endorsement of any particular security, products, or services.
Dimensional Fund Advisors LP is an investment advisor registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
End Notes:
1. Shawn Tully, “Meredith Whitney’s New Target: The states,” CNNMoney.com, Sept. 28, 2010.
2. Dan Seymour, “Default Uneasiness Chases Investors from Muni Funds,” American Banker, Jan. 25, 2011.
3. Ben Levisohn, Jane J. Kim, and Eleanor Liaise, “Munis: What to Do Now,” The Wall Street Journal, Jan. 15, 2011.
Other factors that possibly contributed to the selling pressure are: (1) a major Treasury selloff in late 2010, (2) Standard & Poor’s downgrade of “tobacco bonds” to junk status, (3) expiration of the Build America Bonds program in 2010, and (4) extension of the Bush-era tax cuts.
4. Randall Forsyth, “The Sky Isn’t Falling on the Muni Market,” Barrons.com, January 7, 2011.
5. Iris J. Lav and Elizabeth McNichol, “Misunderstandings Regarding State Debt, Pensions, and Retiree Health Costs Create Unnecessary Alarm,” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Jan. 20, 2011.
6. Agnes T. Crane, “States’ Troubles Are Not the Real Risk for Muni Bonds,” The New York Times, Jan. 30, 2011. Also see Randall W. Forsyth, “Man Bites Dog in the Muni Market,” Barrons.com, Feb. 1, 2011.
7. Bank of America Merrill Lynch 1-10 Years AAA-BBB US Municipal Bond Index.
8. Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MRSB) 2010 Fact Book.
9. Lawrence E. Harris and Michael S. Piwowar, “Secondary Trading Costs in the Municipal Bond Market,” Journal of Finance, June 2006, Volume 61, Issue 3, pp 1361-1397.
So, is the municipal bond market at risk of massive default? No one knows—and we are not in the prediction business. But your view probably depends on your economic expectations and familiarity with the municipal bond market. With this in mind, consider these principles:
• The municipal bond market is large and diverse. The media often report on municipal bond problems as though the market is a single, uniform sector. In reality, the market comprises an estimated $3 trillion in debt, with over 50,000 state and local issuers and about two million outstanding issues. These bonds are rated across a broad spectrum of credit categories and have different characteristics and structures for paying their obligations. Such complexity does not afford simple observations about the market.
• Historical default rates are low. Muni bonds have a strong track record of repayment. One reason is that state and local governments are motivated to avoid default since failure to pay affects their ability to raise capital in the future. Another reason is that most issues repay investors from either project revenues or from a general fund backed by the taxing power of the issuer. Chart 1 shows bond default rates in the US from 1970 to 2008. There have been no defaults in the top-rated investment grade tier (Aaa/AAA). Most defaults are limited to the non-investment grade universe.
Chart 1: Bond Default Rates—Cumulative Percent (1970-2008)
• Most fiscal problems are concentrated in a few large states. An estimated 58% of the recent budget shortfalls have occurred in five states: Arizona, California, Illinois, New York, and Texas.4 However, operating budgets deal with short-term revenues and costs, while municipal bond debt represents long-term borrowing to fund infrastructure projects (e.g., roads, bridges, schools, water systems, and hospitals). Moreover, current levels of state and local government debt, as well as interest payments on that debt, remain well within the historical range.5 Of course, many states are also wrestling with unfunded pension liabilities that may ultimately impact their budgets, but these tend to be longer term obligations as well.
• Municipal bonds are assessed according to actual financials, not models or projections. Some reports have compared the municipal bond market to the subprime mortgage securities market prior to the financial crisis. The circumstances are different. For one, state and local issuers are subject to financial disclosure rules, and the information they provide affects the market prices and credit ratings of their bonds. Also, municipal bonds are not exotic instruments with complex structures that obscure the underlying credit rating and market value of the assets.6 While municipal bond reporting is not as timely or thorough as reporting on corporate debt, investors hold an instrument that is more transparent than the mortgage derivatives that helped spark the financial crisis.
• Current market conditions do not imply unusually high risk. The market incorporates information and expectations into prices, including perceived risk, as illustrated by rising bond yields during the financial crisis and in the recent municipal market selloff. However, since the start of the recession in November 2007, average yields for the AAA-, AA-, and BBB-rated municipal securities have fallen.7 Also, total market volume as measured by total number of trades has been generally flat over the last three-year period.8
Risk Management Issues
Investors should always consider ways to manage risk in their fixed income portfolios. Here are a few guiding principles:
• Hold shorter-term issues. This approach may help reduce volatility and credit risk while enhancing liquidity. Also, fixed income investors who hold investment grade bonds must also consider their exposure to changes in interest rates. Bond prices move in the opposite direction of interest rate changes—and the longer a bond’s maturity, the greater its price change.
• Stay broadly diversified. Holding many municipal bond issues and avoiding concentration in a particular state, sector, or issue type can help reduce the impact of a few non-performing bonds. If default rates were to rise, investors with a well-diversified municipal portfolio should be less exposed.
• Focus on quality and use market pricing to confirm credit ratings. The most creditworthy bonds are those rated AAA or AA, and most of the current problems involve lower-rated bonds. Although ratings are useful, recent history in the mortgage-backed securities market has shown that a bond may not be rated accurately. A bond that is rated AAA should trade in a similar price range to other bonds with similar characteristics and a comparable rating.
Portfolio Decisions
Investors can either hold a portfolio of individual municipal bonds or buy shares in a fund. Building a portfolio of individual bonds offers more direct control over maturity, face value, bond type, credit range, and other issue characteristics. This approach may be useful for matching future liabilities and pursuing other investment objectives. But achieving broad diversification with a custom portfolio may prove a challenge, and the portfolio may be illiquid and expensive to trade, and require more attention and oversight than is feasible for an individual.
Investors often favor professional fund management for many reasons, including those specific to the way the bond market operates. Since bonds are traded through a network of dealers and not a centralized exchange, price discovery may not be easy. Muni bonds also tend to be illiquid since only about 0.7% of the market is traded daily (i.e., only 14,000 out of 2 million issues). These market realities result in high transaction costs. In fact, research shows that municipal bond trades are significantly more expensive than equity trades of equal size.9
Professional managers should have better access to multiple dealers and have the capacity for large- volume trades, which renders a cost advantage over smaller investors. Funds also offer better liquidity and broader diversification across issue type, maturity, credit quality, and geography. A shareholder can access daily share price and know the average credit rating within the portfolio. Equally important, managers should monitor average yields at different maturities, qualities, and regions to gauge the relative riskiness of different issues.
On the downside, managed funds can lose value and shareholders do not control the selection of bonds in the portfolio.
Fixed income securities are subject to increased loss of principal during periods of rising interest rates. Fixed income investments are subject to various other risks, including changes in credit quality, market valuations, liquidity, prepayments, early redemption, corporate events, tax ramifications, and other factors. Municipal securities are subject to the risks of adverse economic and regulatory changes in their issuing states.
All expressions of opinion are subject to change without notice in reaction to shifting market conditions. This article is distributed for informational purposes, and it is not to be construed as an offer, solicitation, recommendation, or endorsement of any particular security, products, or services.
Dimensional Fund Advisors LP is an investment advisor registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
End Notes:
1. Shawn Tully, “Meredith Whitney’s New Target: The states,” CNNMoney.com, Sept. 28, 2010.
2. Dan Seymour, “Default Uneasiness Chases Investors from Muni Funds,” American Banker, Jan. 25, 2011.
3. Ben Levisohn, Jane J. Kim, and Eleanor Liaise, “Munis: What to Do Now,” The Wall Street Journal, Jan. 15, 2011.
Other factors that possibly contributed to the selling pressure are: (1) a major Treasury selloff in late 2010, (2) Standard & Poor’s downgrade of “tobacco bonds” to junk status, (3) expiration of the Build America Bonds program in 2010, and (4) extension of the Bush-era tax cuts.
4. Randall Forsyth, “The Sky Isn’t Falling on the Muni Market,” Barrons.com, January 7, 2011.
5. Iris J. Lav and Elizabeth McNichol, “Misunderstandings Regarding State Debt, Pensions, and Retiree Health Costs Create Unnecessary Alarm,” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Jan. 20, 2011.
6. Agnes T. Crane, “States’ Troubles Are Not the Real Risk for Muni Bonds,” The New York Times, Jan. 30, 2011. Also see Randall W. Forsyth, “Man Bites Dog in the Muni Market,” Barrons.com, Feb. 1, 2011.
7. Bank of America Merrill Lynch 1-10 Years AAA-BBB US Municipal Bond Index.
8. Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MRSB) 2010 Fact Book.
9. Lawrence E. Harris and Michael S. Piwowar, “Secondary Trading Costs in the Municipal Bond Market,” Journal of Finance, June 2006, Volume 61, Issue 3, pp 1361-1397.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Risks Worth Taking
A wise man once said that to profit without risk and to experience life without danger is as impossible as it is to live without being born. That all may be true, but which risks are worth taking and which are not?
The fact is even the most self-declared risk-averse people take risks every day. There are routine risks to our safety in crossing the road, in riding public transport, in exercising at the gym, in choosing lunch and in using electrical equipment.
Then there are the "big decisions" like selecting a degree course, choosing a career, finding a spouse, buying a house and having children. These are all risky decisions, all uncertain, all involving an element of fate.
In making these decisions, we seek to ameliorate risk by carefully weighing up alternatives, researching the market, judging possible consequences and balancing what feels right emotionally and intellectually, both in the short term and in the long.
Sometimes, we ask an independent outsider to guide us in making our decision. They do this by providing an objective assessment of the potential risks and rewards of various alternatives, by taking a holistic view of our circumstances and by keeping us free of distraction and focused on our original goals.
In investment, this is the value that a good financial advisor can bring—not only in understanding risk and return and how to build a portfolio but in knowing the specific needs, circumstances and aspirations of his or her individual client.
Quite simply, many people who invest without the help of an advisor take risks they do not need to take. They gamble on individual stocks, they rely on forecasts, they chase past returns, they fail to rebalance their portfolios to take account of changing risks and they run up unnecessary costs and tax liabilities.
To use an analogy, this is like trying to cross an eight-lane highway in the face of heavy traffic when there is a pedestrian bridge a little way down the road. You may well get to your destination safely through the traffic, but it will be despite your actions rather than because of them. Understanding risk in investment begins with accepting that the market itself has already done a lot of the worrying for you. Markets are highly competitive, which means that new information is quickly built into prices. Instead of trying to second guess the market, you work with it and take the rewards that are on offer.
Your biggest investment is in spending time with an advisor building a diversified portfolio designed to meet your long-term requirements, then meeting them periodically as your needs change and to ensure you are still on course.
In considering all of this, it is important to understand that risk can never be totally eliminated. If there were no risk, there would be no return. But your chances of a good outcome are far greater if you use the accumulated knowledge of financial science and the guiding hand of an advisor who knows you.
To sum up, risk and return are related. But not all risks are worth taking. The process of working this out starts with not trying to do it all alone.
The fact is even the most self-declared risk-averse people take risks every day. There are routine risks to our safety in crossing the road, in riding public transport, in exercising at the gym, in choosing lunch and in using electrical equipment.
Then there are the "big decisions" like selecting a degree course, choosing a career, finding a spouse, buying a house and having children. These are all risky decisions, all uncertain, all involving an element of fate.
In making these decisions, we seek to ameliorate risk by carefully weighing up alternatives, researching the market, judging possible consequences and balancing what feels right emotionally and intellectually, both in the short term and in the long.
Sometimes, we ask an independent outsider to guide us in making our decision. They do this by providing an objective assessment of the potential risks and rewards of various alternatives, by taking a holistic view of our circumstances and by keeping us free of distraction and focused on our original goals.
In investment, this is the value that a good financial advisor can bring—not only in understanding risk and return and how to build a portfolio but in knowing the specific needs, circumstances and aspirations of his or her individual client.
Quite simply, many people who invest without the help of an advisor take risks they do not need to take. They gamble on individual stocks, they rely on forecasts, they chase past returns, they fail to rebalance their portfolios to take account of changing risks and they run up unnecessary costs and tax liabilities.
To use an analogy, this is like trying to cross an eight-lane highway in the face of heavy traffic when there is a pedestrian bridge a little way down the road. You may well get to your destination safely through the traffic, but it will be despite your actions rather than because of them. Understanding risk in investment begins with accepting that the market itself has already done a lot of the worrying for you. Markets are highly competitive, which means that new information is quickly built into prices. Instead of trying to second guess the market, you work with it and take the rewards that are on offer.
Your biggest investment is in spending time with an advisor building a diversified portfolio designed to meet your long-term requirements, then meeting them periodically as your needs change and to ensure you are still on course.
In considering all of this, it is important to understand that risk can never be totally eliminated. If there were no risk, there would be no return. But your chances of a good outcome are far greater if you use the accumulated knowledge of financial science and the guiding hand of an advisor who knows you.
To sum up, risk and return are related. But not all risks are worth taking. The process of working this out starts with not trying to do it all alone.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Tax Planning Alert—The 2010 Tax Act
The newly passed and signed 2010 Tax Act, formally named the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, includes several provisions that will affect taxpayers. Here is the information you need to know now about this legislation, formally named the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010.
Major Provisions
The new law
• postpones the sunset of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts;
• reduces the estate tax;
• extends unemployment benefits;
• includes an alternative minimum tax (AMT) patch;
• continues through 2012 the lower capital gains tax rate introduced by the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003; and
• extends for two years the repeal of the itemized deduction phase-out and the personal exemption phase-out.
Provisions That May Affect You
Estate Tax
The Act temporarily reinstates the estate tax, with an estate tax rate of 35% and an estate tax exemption of $5 million (adjusted for inflation after 2011).
Payroll Tax
For 2011, the Act reduces the rate for the Social Security portion of payroll taxes to 10.4% by reducing the employee rate from 6.2% to 4.2%. The employer’s portion remains 6.2%.
Family
The Act extends several expired or expiring provisions affecting families, including the following:
• The increased standard deduction for married taxpayers filing jointly, which is scheduled to expire after 2010, continues for two years.
• The $1,000 child tax credit amount continues for two years instead of reverting to $500.
• The increased starting and ending points for the earned income credit continues for two years.
• The $3,000 amount for the child and dependent care credit, which was scheduled to revert to $2,400 after 2010, continues for two years.
• The American Opportunity Tax Credit continues for two years.
The Act also makes adjustments to the gift exclusion and generation-skipping transfer (GST) tax that will affect family giving:
• The federal gift tax exemption is increased to $5 million for 2011 and 2012, up from $1 million in 2010.
• The GST tax exemptions are set at $5 million for 2011 and 2012. The exemption limit is scheduled to drop to $1 million beginning in 2013.
Business
The Act extends the 100% bonus depreciation for business property acquired after September 8, 2010, before January 1, 2012, and placed in service before January 1, 2012 (or before January 1, 2013, in the case of certain property). It also sets the expensing limitation under IRC §179 at $125,000 and the phase-out threshold amount at $500,000 for 2012. The Act then reduces these amounts to $25,000 and $200,000 for tax years beginning after 2012.
The temporary 100% exclusion of gain from the sale of certain small business stock under IRC §1202, enacted by the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, is extended through 2011.
AMT
The Act includes an AMT patch for 2010 and 2011.
• For 2010, the AMT exemption amounts will be $47,450 for unmarried individuals and $72,450 for married individuals filing jointly.
• For 2011, the amounts will be $48,450 and $74,450, respectively.
Needless to say, the 2010 Tax Act is still very new. It is only just being analyzed by professional advisers. The law is potentially subject to modifications by technical correction acts. In addition, provisions of the law may be interpreted by the Treasury Department issuing regulations and by the IRS issuing forms and instructions.
Major Provisions
The new law
• postpones the sunset of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts;
• reduces the estate tax;
• extends unemployment benefits;
• includes an alternative minimum tax (AMT) patch;
• continues through 2012 the lower capital gains tax rate introduced by the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003; and
• extends for two years the repeal of the itemized deduction phase-out and the personal exemption phase-out.
Provisions That May Affect You
Estate Tax
The Act temporarily reinstates the estate tax, with an estate tax rate of 35% and an estate tax exemption of $5 million (adjusted for inflation after 2011).
Payroll Tax
For 2011, the Act reduces the rate for the Social Security portion of payroll taxes to 10.4% by reducing the employee rate from 6.2% to 4.2%. The employer’s portion remains 6.2%.
Family
The Act extends several expired or expiring provisions affecting families, including the following:
• The increased standard deduction for married taxpayers filing jointly, which is scheduled to expire after 2010, continues for two years.
• The $1,000 child tax credit amount continues for two years instead of reverting to $500.
• The increased starting and ending points for the earned income credit continues for two years.
• The $3,000 amount for the child and dependent care credit, which was scheduled to revert to $2,400 after 2010, continues for two years.
• The American Opportunity Tax Credit continues for two years.
The Act also makes adjustments to the gift exclusion and generation-skipping transfer (GST) tax that will affect family giving:
• The federal gift tax exemption is increased to $5 million for 2011 and 2012, up from $1 million in 2010.
• The GST tax exemptions are set at $5 million for 2011 and 2012. The exemption limit is scheduled to drop to $1 million beginning in 2013.
Business
The Act extends the 100% bonus depreciation for business property acquired after September 8, 2010, before January 1, 2012, and placed in service before January 1, 2012 (or before January 1, 2013, in the case of certain property). It also sets the expensing limitation under IRC §179 at $125,000 and the phase-out threshold amount at $500,000 for 2012. The Act then reduces these amounts to $25,000 and $200,000 for tax years beginning after 2012.
The temporary 100% exclusion of gain from the sale of certain small business stock under IRC §1202, enacted by the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, is extended through 2011.
AMT
The Act includes an AMT patch for 2010 and 2011.
• For 2010, the AMT exemption amounts will be $47,450 for unmarried individuals and $72,450 for married individuals filing jointly.
• For 2011, the amounts will be $48,450 and $74,450, respectively.
Needless to say, the 2010 Tax Act is still very new. It is only just being analyzed by professional advisers. The law is potentially subject to modifications by technical correction acts. In addition, provisions of the law may be interpreted by the Treasury Department issuing regulations and by the IRS issuing forms and instructions.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
What’s “New” about a New Normal?
The 2008 global market crisis and the struggling economy have left many investors fatigued. Despite two years of strong equity returns, some investors have been slow to regain market confidence. Many are accepting the talk about a “new normal” in which stocks offer lower returns in the future(1).
The concept of a new normal is anything but new. In fact, throughout modern history, periods of economic upheaval and market volatility have led people to assume that life had somehow changed and that new economic rules or an expanding government would limit growth. What they could not see was how markets naturally adapt to major social and economic shifts, leading to new wealth creation.
Let’s look at other periods when investors had strong reasons to give up on stocks, and consider the parallels to today:
1932: The US stock market had just experienced four consecutive years of negative returns. A 1929 dollar invested in stocks was worth only 31 cents by the end of 1932. Hopes were sinking during the Great Depression, and many people felt as though the economy had permanently changed. Many investors left the market, and some would not return for a generation. Amidst what is considered the roughest economic time in US history, the markets looked ahead to recovery.
US Stock Market Performance after 1932*
5 Years 10 Years 20 Years
Annualized Return 15.35% 10.07% 13.19%
Growth of $1 $ 2.04 $ 2.61 $ 11.92
*All stock market returns based on CRSP 1-10 Index(2).
Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Indices are not available for direct investment; therefore, their performance does not reflect the expenses associated with the management of an actual portfolio.
1941: World War II was raging, and the US had just entered the conflict. The US stock market had experienced two consecutive years of negative performance, and the economy had shown signs of sliding back into depression. Although conversion to a wartime economy would revive industrial production and boost employment, investors struggled to see beyond the conflict. Many expected rationing, price controls, directed production, and other government measures to limit private sector performance.
US Stock Market Performance after 1941*
5 Years 10 Years 20 Years
Annualized Return 18.63% 16.67% 16.29%
Growth of $1 $ 2.35 $ 4.67 $ 20.47
1974: Investors had just experienced the worst two-year market decline since the early 1930s, and the economy was entering its second year of recession. The Middle East war had triggered the Arab oil embargo in late 1973, which drove crude oil prices to record levels and resulted in price controls and gas lines. Consumers feared that other shortages would develop. President Nixon had resigned from office in August over the Watergate scandal. Annual inflation in 1974 averaged 11%, and with mortgage rates at 10%, the housing market was experiencing its worst slump in decades. With prices and unemployment rising, consumer confidence was weak and many economists were predicting another depression.
US Stock Market Performance after 1974*
5 years 10 years 20 years
Annualized Return 17.29% 15.92% 14.89%
Growth of $1 $ 2.22 $ 4.38 $ 16.07
1981: The stock market had delivered strong positive returns in five of the last seven calendar years, and the two negative years (1977 and 1981) were only moderately negative. Despite these results, investors were weary from stagflation, which was characterized by high annual inflation, anemic GDP growth, and unemployment, and from fears of another economic downturn. In late 1980, gold climbed to a record $873 per ounce—or $2,457 in 2010 dollars. (By comparison, spot gold reached $1,256 per ounce in 2010.) Memories of the 1973–74 bear market lingered. A 1979 BusinessWeek cover story titled “The Death of Equities” claimed inflation was destroying the stock market and that stocks were no longer a good long-term investment.
US Stock Market Performance after 1981*
5 Years 10 years 20 Years
Annualized Return 18.82% 16.58% 14.54%
Growth of $1 $ 2.37 $ 4.64 $ 15.11
1987: On “Black Monday” (October 19, 1987), the Dow Jones Industrial Average plummeted 508 points, losing over 22% of its value during the worst single day in market history. The plunge marked the end of a five-year bull market. But in the wake of the crash, the market began a relatively steady climb and recovered within two years. The effects of the crash were mostly limited to the financial sector, but the event shook investor confidence and raised concerns that destabilized markets would increase the odds of recession.
US Stock Market Performance after 1987*
5 Years 10 Years 20 Years
Annualized Return 16.16% 17.75% 11.89%
Growth of $1 $ 2.11 $ 5.12 $ 9.46
2002: By the end of 2002, investors had experienced the stress of the dot-com crash in March 2000, the shock of the September 11 attacks, and the early stages of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Although October 9, 2002, would ultimately mark the market’s low point, investors had endured three years of negative performance and an estimated $5 trillion in lost market value. A younger generation of investors had experienced its first taste of old-world risk in the “new economy.”
US Stock Market Performance after 2002*
5 Years 10 Years 20 Years
Annualized Return 13.84% — —
Growth of $1 $ 1.91 — —
2008−Today: The market slide that began in 2008 reversed in February 2009—gaining 83.3% from March 2009 through 2010. Despite two years of strong stock market returns, memories of the 2008 bear market and talk of the “lost decade” have led many investors to question stocks as a long-term investment. But earlier generations of investors faced similar worries—and today’s headlines echo the past with stories about government spending, surging inflation, deflationary threats, rising oil prices, economic stagnation, high unemployment, and market volatility.
Of course, no one knows what the future holds, which brings the concept of “normal” into question. What exactly is the status quo in the markets?
The chart below shows the annual performance of the US market, as defined by CRSP deciles 1-10. Since 1926, there have been only four periods when the stock market had two or more consecutive years of negative returns. In addition, annual returns are rarely in line with the market’s 9.67% long-term average (annualized). The most obvious normal may be that, over time, stocks offer expected returns reflecting the uncertainty and risk that investors must bear.
What’s new about that?
End Notes:
1. Adam Shell, “’New Normal’ Argues for Investor Caution,” USA Today, August, 16, 2010. The term “new normal” originally referred to a post-global financial crisis environment characterized by several years of sluggish economic growth, below-average equity returns in developed markets, high market volatility and risk, high unemployment, and a world in which the range of possible financial outcomes is wider than normal and wealth dynamics are moving from developed to emerging economies.
2. Returns for all periods of the CRSP 1-10 Index are annualized. Data provided by the Center for Research in Securities Prices, University of Chicago. Data includes indices of securities in each decile as well as other segments of NYSE securities (plus AMEX equivalents since July 1962 and NASDAQ equivalents since 1973). Additionally, includes US Treasury constant maturity indices.
Olhoeft Financial, LLC is an investment advisor registered with the State of California. This information is for educational purposes only and should not be considered investment advice or an offer of any security for sale.
The concept of a new normal is anything but new. In fact, throughout modern history, periods of economic upheaval and market volatility have led people to assume that life had somehow changed and that new economic rules or an expanding government would limit growth. What they could not see was how markets naturally adapt to major social and economic shifts, leading to new wealth creation.
Let’s look at other periods when investors had strong reasons to give up on stocks, and consider the parallels to today:
1932: The US stock market had just experienced four consecutive years of negative returns. A 1929 dollar invested in stocks was worth only 31 cents by the end of 1932. Hopes were sinking during the Great Depression, and many people felt as though the economy had permanently changed. Many investors left the market, and some would not return for a generation. Amidst what is considered the roughest economic time in US history, the markets looked ahead to recovery.
US Stock Market Performance after 1932*
5 Years 10 Years 20 Years
Annualized Return 15.35% 10.07% 13.19%
Growth of $1 $ 2.04 $ 2.61 $ 11.92
*All stock market returns based on CRSP 1-10 Index(2).
Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Indices are not available for direct investment; therefore, their performance does not reflect the expenses associated with the management of an actual portfolio.
1941: World War II was raging, and the US had just entered the conflict. The US stock market had experienced two consecutive years of negative performance, and the economy had shown signs of sliding back into depression. Although conversion to a wartime economy would revive industrial production and boost employment, investors struggled to see beyond the conflict. Many expected rationing, price controls, directed production, and other government measures to limit private sector performance.
US Stock Market Performance after 1941*
5 Years 10 Years 20 Years
Annualized Return 18.63% 16.67% 16.29%
Growth of $1 $ 2.35 $ 4.67 $ 20.47
1974: Investors had just experienced the worst two-year market decline since the early 1930s, and the economy was entering its second year of recession. The Middle East war had triggered the Arab oil embargo in late 1973, which drove crude oil prices to record levels and resulted in price controls and gas lines. Consumers feared that other shortages would develop. President Nixon had resigned from office in August over the Watergate scandal. Annual inflation in 1974 averaged 11%, and with mortgage rates at 10%, the housing market was experiencing its worst slump in decades. With prices and unemployment rising, consumer confidence was weak and many economists were predicting another depression.
US Stock Market Performance after 1974*
5 years 10 years 20 years
Annualized Return 17.29% 15.92% 14.89%
Growth of $1 $ 2.22 $ 4.38 $ 16.07
1981: The stock market had delivered strong positive returns in five of the last seven calendar years, and the two negative years (1977 and 1981) were only moderately negative. Despite these results, investors were weary from stagflation, which was characterized by high annual inflation, anemic GDP growth, and unemployment, and from fears of another economic downturn. In late 1980, gold climbed to a record $873 per ounce—or $2,457 in 2010 dollars. (By comparison, spot gold reached $1,256 per ounce in 2010.) Memories of the 1973–74 bear market lingered. A 1979 BusinessWeek cover story titled “The Death of Equities” claimed inflation was destroying the stock market and that stocks were no longer a good long-term investment.
US Stock Market Performance after 1981*
5 Years 10 years 20 Years
Annualized Return 18.82% 16.58% 14.54%
Growth of $1 $ 2.37 $ 4.64 $ 15.11
1987: On “Black Monday” (October 19, 1987), the Dow Jones Industrial Average plummeted 508 points, losing over 22% of its value during the worst single day in market history. The plunge marked the end of a five-year bull market. But in the wake of the crash, the market began a relatively steady climb and recovered within two years. The effects of the crash were mostly limited to the financial sector, but the event shook investor confidence and raised concerns that destabilized markets would increase the odds of recession.
US Stock Market Performance after 1987*
5 Years 10 Years 20 Years
Annualized Return 16.16% 17.75% 11.89%
Growth of $1 $ 2.11 $ 5.12 $ 9.46
2002: By the end of 2002, investors had experienced the stress of the dot-com crash in March 2000, the shock of the September 11 attacks, and the early stages of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Although October 9, 2002, would ultimately mark the market’s low point, investors had endured three years of negative performance and an estimated $5 trillion in lost market value. A younger generation of investors had experienced its first taste of old-world risk in the “new economy.”
US Stock Market Performance after 2002*
5 Years 10 Years 20 Years
Annualized Return 13.84% — —
Growth of $1 $ 1.91 — —
2008−Today: The market slide that began in 2008 reversed in February 2009—gaining 83.3% from March 2009 through 2010. Despite two years of strong stock market returns, memories of the 2008 bear market and talk of the “lost decade” have led many investors to question stocks as a long-term investment. But earlier generations of investors faced similar worries—and today’s headlines echo the past with stories about government spending, surging inflation, deflationary threats, rising oil prices, economic stagnation, high unemployment, and market volatility.
Of course, no one knows what the future holds, which brings the concept of “normal” into question. What exactly is the status quo in the markets?
The chart below shows the annual performance of the US market, as defined by CRSP deciles 1-10. Since 1926, there have been only four periods when the stock market had two or more consecutive years of negative returns. In addition, annual returns are rarely in line with the market’s 9.67% long-term average (annualized). The most obvious normal may be that, over time, stocks offer expected returns reflecting the uncertainty and risk that investors must bear.
What’s new about that?
1. Adam Shell, “’New Normal’ Argues for Investor Caution,” USA Today, August, 16, 2010. The term “new normal” originally referred to a post-global financial crisis environment characterized by several years of sluggish economic growth, below-average equity returns in developed markets, high market volatility and risk, high unemployment, and a world in which the range of possible financial outcomes is wider than normal and wealth dynamics are moving from developed to emerging economies.
2. Returns for all periods of the CRSP 1-10 Index are annualized. Data provided by the Center for Research in Securities Prices, University of Chicago. Data includes indices of securities in each decile as well as other segments of NYSE securities (plus AMEX equivalents since July 1962 and NASDAQ equivalents since 1973). Additionally, includes US Treasury constant maturity indices.
Olhoeft Financial, LLC is an investment advisor registered with the State of California. This information is for educational purposes only and should not be considered investment advice or an offer of any security for sale.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Record Retention: Keep critical documents and records safe and secure but accessible in a time of need
Certain documents and records are too important to retain in an ordinary file drawer. Fortunately, they are also the ones you tend to need least frequently. If they are stolen or destroyed by a catastrophe such as flood or fire, replacing them could be extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible. One of the best places to retain such items is a safety deposit box. These can be rented for a small monthly fee at many banks. The boxes are actually locked drawers within the bank's vault. Various sizes are often available to meet individual needs. A home safe is another option, provided that it is adequately rated to protect contents from fire, water, explosions (gas leaks), and other calamities. Documents deserving extra protection include:
Make backup copies of all computerized records
These days, many people keep important records on their personal computer. This can be an easy way to keep your records organized and updated, but it is important to keep a backup copy of these records in a safe place. If your hard drive has a meltdown, you'll need to be able to recreate the important financial information that was lost.
Financial management software can be beneficial in tracking your finances, but it will take some time to learn how to use it properly. Don't forget that you must still retain original documents as evidence of past transactions.
Save all essential records, receipts, and documents that your budgeting system requires
There are many reasons to save important records. If you apply for a loan (such as a mortgage, auto loan, or education loan), you will have to provide proof of your income. If you notice that money is disappearing out of your checking account, you'll need your bank statements to back up your claim of unauthorized transactions. If you own financial securities, capital gains taxes are based on the price you paid for them on the date purchased. You'll be required to verify this information. Potential tax audits will be far less intimidating if you have kept records to substantiate your tax return claims. An unsubstantiated claim will cost you not only the unpaid tax but interest charges and possibly, a hefty penalty.
Keep records as long as appropriate
Different records need to be saved for different periods of time. Divide your records into categories, such as short-term, medium-term, and long-term. There are no concrete rules about how long records must be saved, so you will often have to use your own judgment. The following guidelines may help:
Short-term (1-3 years)
- Property deeds
- Trust documents
- Insurance policies
- Automobile titles
- Stock and bond certificates
- Wills and estate plans
- Personal property inventory
- Marriage and birth certificates
- Military discharge papers
- Passports
Keeping copies of vital records can save time, money, and headaches
There may be times when you need to know certain information contained on documents you've placed in safekeeping but don't need the actual document. Avoid the inconvenience of obtaining the original documents by making copies of them for your file.
Tip: Create one file that includes copies of all documents you've placed in safekeeping (e.g., a "Safety Deposit Box" file). Then, you not only can turn to it for vital facts, but if you are incapacitated, whoever handles your important affairs will be able to locate key documents quickly.
Caution: The specific contents of some documents, such as wills and trusts, may be inappropriate to keep in more highly accessible home files. Instead of a photocopy, you might simply file a page containing those key facts that are less confidential in nature or obliterate very sensitive items on the copy.
These days, many people keep important records on their personal computer. This can be an easy way to keep your records organized and updated, but it is important to keep a backup copy of these records in a safe place. If your hard drive has a meltdown, you'll need to be able to recreate the important financial information that was lost.
There are many reasons to save important records. If you apply for a loan (such as a mortgage, auto loan, or education loan), you will have to provide proof of your income. If you notice that money is disappearing out of your checking account, you'll need your bank statements to back up your claim of unauthorized transactions. If you own financial securities, capital gains taxes are based on the price you paid for them on the date purchased. You'll be required to verify this information. Potential tax audits will be far less intimidating if you have kept records to substantiate your tax return claims. An unsubstantiated claim will cost you not only the unpaid tax but interest charges and possibly, a hefty penalty.
Tip: Most of us realize it's important to keep expense records, but for those with income sources other than employers, a cash receipts log can be invaluable. A small notebook or a few sheets in a separate file folder will do for recording income as it arrives. If you don't recall later whether you received a particular dividend or rent payment, the log provides a quick answer.
Caution: Certain items, such as tips or business-related use of a car, require special tax treatment and records. Therefore, your record-keeping system must track these and retain any related documents.
Different records need to be saved for different periods of time. Divide your records into categories, such as short-term, medium-term, and long-term. There are no concrete rules about how long records must be saved, so you will often have to use your own judgment. The following guidelines may help:
- Household bills, except those that support tax deductions (items such as heat, water, and electricity are generally short-term unless you deduct them for home office use or a rental)
- Expired insurance policies
- Tax returns and supporting information
- Income and expense records (including lottery tickets and winnings)
- Bank and credit union statements
- Brokerage house statements
- Canceled checks and check registers (checks for major purchases may be kept longer)
- Paid-off loan documents
- Personal property sales receipts
- Tax dispute records
- Evidence of retirement plan contributions
- Investment records
- Medical history information
- Pension/retirement plan documents
- Social Security information
- Home ownership/sale documents: 7 years after sale or indefinitely
- Home improvement records: 7 years after sale
Caution: The IRS typically has three years after a return is filed to audit a return, or two years after you've paid the tax, whichever is later. However, if income was underreported by at least 25 percent, the IRS can look back six years after the return is filed, and there is no time limit for fraudulent tax returns. An audit requires that you provide documentation to substantiate the return being audited.
Tip: Canceled checks do not necessarily prove why a given payment was made, only that the payment was made. Having dated receipts, invoices, sales slips, credit card statements, and bank statements can provide valuable proof if needed, whether for an IRS auditor or an insurance claims adjuster.
Save space: Annually review retained records and discard those no longer needed
Some records and documents can be discarded after all potential usefulness has passed. Depending on circumstances, records can accumulate quickly and require extensive storage space. Discarding records that are no longer necessary saves space and makes finding a record you need easier.
Some records and documents can be discarded after all potential usefulness has passed. Depending on circumstances, records can accumulate quickly and require extensive storage space. Discarding records that are no longer necessary saves space and makes finding a record you need easier.
Tip: Expired product warranties and insurance policies are excellent candidates for the trash can.
Tip: For easier future access, retain records for each year in separate files.
Caution: Keep your important records and financial files separate from information you might want to retain for other purposes. If you clip articles, jot notes, and save information you receive on items of potential interest, create a separate set of information files for them. These might contain vacation ideas, recipes, home improvement items, personal letters, or the kids' school papers. Keeping them apart from vital records and financial files makes both easier to find and manage.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), signed into law in 2010, makes significant changes to our health care delivery system. Some of these reforms took effect in 2010 while many others take place in 2011. The following is a brief description of some of the most important provisions of the health care reform legislation that take effect this year.
Individual and group health insurance plans are required to extend dependent coverage for adult children up to age 26. While this requirement was effective November 2010 for active employees, enrollment elections made during the 2011 open enrollment period will be effective on January 1, 2011.
The cost of over-the-counter drugs not prescribed by a doctor can no longer be reimbursed through a Health Reimbursement Account or a health Flexible Spending account, nor can these costs be reimbursed on a tax-free basis through a Health Savings Account or Archer Medical Savings Account. Also, the additional tax on distributions from health savings accounts or Archer MSAs that are not used for qualified medical expenses increases to 20%.
Medicare Part D participants will receive a 50% discount on brand-name prescriptions filled in the coverage gap (i.e., the donut hole) from pharmaceutical manufacturers, and federal subsidies for generic prescriptions filled in the coverage gap will start to be phased in.
Health plans that do not spend at least a minimum percentage of premiums (85% for plans in the large group market and 80% for plans in the individual or small group markets) on health care services must provide a rebate to consumers.
Certain preventive services covered by Medicare are no longer subject to cost-sharing (co-payments); the deductible is waived for Medicare-covered colorectal cancer screening tests; and Medicare now covers personalized prevention plans including a comprehensive health risk assessment.
High income ($85,000 for individuals, $170,000 for married filing jointly) enrollees in Medicare Part B and Part D coverage will likely see their premiums increase. The income thresholds used to determine Medicare Part B and Part D premiums for higher income individuals is frozen at 2010 income rates through 2019 and will not be adjusted for inflation. Also, the federal subsidy for high income Part D participants is reduced, resulting in increased premiums based on income levels that exceed the applicable threshold.
Medicare Advantage (MA) plans can no longer impose higher cost-sharing for some Medicare-covered benefits than would be imposed by traditional Medicare Parts A or B insurance. Also, Medicare Advantage plans cannot exceed a mandatory maximum out-of-pocket amount for Medicare Parts A and B services. The maximum amount in 2011 is $6,700, but MA plans can voluntarily offer lower out-of-pocket amounts. Also, the annual enrollment period for MA plans is changed to October 15 to December 7 each year beginning in 2011 for plan year 2012.
Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Program (CLASS) is to be established to provide national long-term care insurance funded by voluntary participant premiums that can be paid through payroll deductions.
The disclosure of the nutritional content of standard menu items offered through chain restaurants and vending machines is required.
The requirement that employers report the total value of employer-sponsored health benefits on employees' W-2s was to begin in 2011. However, the IRS has deferred this requirement for 2011 so employers will not be subject to penalties for failure to meet this requirement.
These changes may impact your health insurance benefits and costs. To learn more about health care reforms occurring in 2011, consult with your financial professional.
Individual and group health insurance plans are required to extend dependent coverage for adult children up to age 26. While this requirement was effective November 2010 for active employees, enrollment elections made during the 2011 open enrollment period will be effective on January 1, 2011.
The cost of over-the-counter drugs not prescribed by a doctor can no longer be reimbursed through a Health Reimbursement Account or a health Flexible Spending account, nor can these costs be reimbursed on a tax-free basis through a Health Savings Account or Archer Medical Savings Account. Also, the additional tax on distributions from health savings accounts or Archer MSAs that are not used for qualified medical expenses increases to 20%.
Medicare Part D participants will receive a 50% discount on brand-name prescriptions filled in the coverage gap (i.e., the donut hole) from pharmaceutical manufacturers, and federal subsidies for generic prescriptions filled in the coverage gap will start to be phased in.
Health plans that do not spend at least a minimum percentage of premiums (85% for plans in the large group market and 80% for plans in the individual or small group markets) on health care services must provide a rebate to consumers.
Certain preventive services covered by Medicare are no longer subject to cost-sharing (co-payments); the deductible is waived for Medicare-covered colorectal cancer screening tests; and Medicare now covers personalized prevention plans including a comprehensive health risk assessment.
High income ($85,000 for individuals, $170,000 for married filing jointly) enrollees in Medicare Part B and Part D coverage will likely see their premiums increase. The income thresholds used to determine Medicare Part B and Part D premiums for higher income individuals is frozen at 2010 income rates through 2019 and will not be adjusted for inflation. Also, the federal subsidy for high income Part D participants is reduced, resulting in increased premiums based on income levels that exceed the applicable threshold.
Medicare Advantage (MA) plans can no longer impose higher cost-sharing for some Medicare-covered benefits than would be imposed by traditional Medicare Parts A or B insurance. Also, Medicare Advantage plans cannot exceed a mandatory maximum out-of-pocket amount for Medicare Parts A and B services. The maximum amount in 2011 is $6,700, but MA plans can voluntarily offer lower out-of-pocket amounts. Also, the annual enrollment period for MA plans is changed to October 15 to December 7 each year beginning in 2011 for plan year 2012.
Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Program (CLASS) is to be established to provide national long-term care insurance funded by voluntary participant premiums that can be paid through payroll deductions.
The disclosure of the nutritional content of standard menu items offered through chain restaurants and vending machines is required.
The requirement that employers report the total value of employer-sponsored health benefits on employees' W-2s was to begin in 2011. However, the IRS has deferred this requirement for 2011 so employers will not be subject to penalties for failure to meet this requirement.
These changes may impact your health insurance benefits and costs. To learn more about health care reforms occurring in 2011, consult with your financial professional.
The Year in Review
The Year in Review
Themes in 2010
In retrospect, it was a good year for globally diversified investors. But if investors had shaped their market expectations and decisions according to economic news, they likely would not have expected positive returns. The following are a few dominant themes during the year.
Mixed Economic Signals
Although investors in the US and Europe awaited signs of a rebound, economic news was mixed, with some measures showing gradual improvement and others offering evidence that the economy remains vulnerable. Favorable news included moderate economic expansion in the US, Euro zone, and Australia, as well as rising factory orders and manufacturing activity, rebounding auto sales and automaker profits, slowing growth in US bankruptcies, declining home foreclosures, and an improving financial services sector. In late Q3, US corporate cash levels reached $1.9 trillion, which, as a percentage of total corporate assets, is the highest since 1959. In late Q4, initial claims for unemployment fell to the lowest level in two years.
Negative news included continuing high jobless rates in the US and other developed markets. US unemployment began the year at 9.7%, dipped to 9.5% in July, but climbed to 9.8% in November. Personal bankruptcies in the US increased 9%, reaching their highest level since 2005. Also, bank failures in 2010 were the worst since 1992, during the savings and loan crisis.
Housing and Real Estate
The global property decline that helped trigger the 2008 financial crisis began to ease in 2010. Home prices improved in the UK but remained weak in the US, with monthly sales of new homes falling at one point to the lowest level since tracking was initiated in 1963. Foreclosures increased dramatically in the first half of 2010 before improving in Q4. However, 2010 proved to be another successful year for REITs, despite recurring predictions of a brewing commercial real estate collapse that would trigger a financial crisis.
Quantitative Easing and Fiscal Stimulus
Governments and central banks took additional actions to stimulate economies and shore up financial markets. The most direct support came as central banks supported government bond markets in the US and Europe. The Federal Reserve's November announcement of a second round of quantitative easing (known as "QE2") sparked concern that additional monetary stimulus would stoke inflation and debase the dollar. According to some, the actions helped lift stocks and corporate bond markets. In December, the extension of the Bush-era tax cuts and a 2% reduction in Social Security payroll taxes in 2011 improved economic expectations.
Sovereign Debt Worries
During the year, the weakening finances of some European states, including Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, Spain, and Belgium, raised concern that the financial crisis had moved from private-sector banks to public-sector balance sheets. These concerns led to the downgrading of certain government debt and widening of bond yield spreads. The Euro zone countries and International Monetary Fund responded with loans that were conditional on some sovereign borrowers taking drastic austerity measures.
Inflation vs. Deflation
Despite moderate inflation in most economies during 2010, economists warned that continued government budget deficits and monetary expansion would drive up prices. Conversely, the US central bank was concerned that inflation was so low that the economy might slip into a deflationary cycle. In fact, potential deflation was one of the main reasons the Fed implemented QE2 and pumped $600 billion into the banking system. By year end, the Fed indicated that the deflation threat was easing.
Higher Commodity Prices
Commodities climbed during 2010, with many sectors reaching price levels not seen in decades. Copper prices, which are considered a bellwether of economic activity, rose 33%, and oil gained 15% to finish 2010 over $91 a barrel. Agricultural commodities, a traditionally volatile sector, saw even more extreme price swings. Concern about a weakening dollar drove up precious metals, with gold exceeding $1,400 per ounce and silver up 81% for the year.
Investor Confidence
In the wake of the financial crisis, investors who have become more risk averse or accepted the tenets of a "new normal" in the economy and markets chose to remain in fixed income assets. Bond funds in the US received a massive net inflow of money in the past two years, suggesting that many investors who fled stocks may have missed out on much of the rebound in equities. Throughout most of 2010, investment flows were leaving the US stock market and moving to emerging markets. In December, flows turned sharply positive in the US, with an estimated $22 billion directed to US stock funds.
2010 Investment Overview
After a slow start and a tough second quarter, most markets in the world ended the year with positive results. The US market indices accounted for most of the top performance, with the Russell 2000 Growth Index delivering a 29.09% return for the year. US small cap and small value also were among the top performers. (All returns are in US dollars.)
Most developed markets around the world logged positive returns, with thirty-seven of the forty-five countries that MSCI tracks gaining ground in both local currency and US dollar terms. Scandinavia and Asia had particularly high returns. Overall, the MSCI World ex USA index gained 9%, and the MSCI Emerging Markets Index gained 19% for the year.
In the last few months of the year, the highest returns were generally experienced by countries whose economies are dominated by oil and commodity exports—for example, Canada, Norway, Russia, and South Africa. Other emerging markets, such as Thailand, Philippines, Chile, and Peru had strong returns. China, despite its continued high profile and news of economic growth, was one of the lowest-performing emerging markets.
The US dollar lost ground against the Canadian dollar and most Pacific Rim currencies, which helped dollar-denominated equity returns from those countries. The US dollar gained against the euro and British pound.
Along the market capitalization dimension, small caps outperformed large caps by substantial margins in the US, developed, and emerging markets. Value stocks underperformed growth stocks across all market capitalization segments in the US and had more mixed results in international developed and emerging markets.
Fixed income performed generally well, especially for investors who took term and credit risk, with long-term, high-yield bonds returning more than 20%. Real estate securities had excellent returns, performing comparably to the equity asset classes.
Themes in 2010
In retrospect, it was a good year for globally diversified investors. But if investors had shaped their market expectations and decisions according to economic news, they likely would not have expected positive returns. The following are a few dominant themes during the year.
Mixed Economic Signals
Although investors in the US and Europe awaited signs of a rebound, economic news was mixed, with some measures showing gradual improvement and others offering evidence that the economy remains vulnerable. Favorable news included moderate economic expansion in the US, Euro zone, and Australia, as well as rising factory orders and manufacturing activity, rebounding auto sales and automaker profits, slowing growth in US bankruptcies, declining home foreclosures, and an improving financial services sector. In late Q3, US corporate cash levels reached $1.9 trillion, which, as a percentage of total corporate assets, is the highest since 1959. In late Q4, initial claims for unemployment fell to the lowest level in two years.
Negative news included continuing high jobless rates in the US and other developed markets. US unemployment began the year at 9.7%, dipped to 9.5% in July, but climbed to 9.8% in November. Personal bankruptcies in the US increased 9%, reaching their highest level since 2005. Also, bank failures in 2010 were the worst since 1992, during the savings and loan crisis.
Housing and Real Estate
The global property decline that helped trigger the 2008 financial crisis began to ease in 2010. Home prices improved in the UK but remained weak in the US, with monthly sales of new homes falling at one point to the lowest level since tracking was initiated in 1963. Foreclosures increased dramatically in the first half of 2010 before improving in Q4. However, 2010 proved to be another successful year for REITs, despite recurring predictions of a brewing commercial real estate collapse that would trigger a financial crisis.
Quantitative Easing and Fiscal Stimulus
Governments and central banks took additional actions to stimulate economies and shore up financial markets. The most direct support came as central banks supported government bond markets in the US and Europe. The Federal Reserve's November announcement of a second round of quantitative easing (known as "QE2") sparked concern that additional monetary stimulus would stoke inflation and debase the dollar. According to some, the actions helped lift stocks and corporate bond markets. In December, the extension of the Bush-era tax cuts and a 2% reduction in Social Security payroll taxes in 2011 improved economic expectations.
Sovereign Debt Worries
During the year, the weakening finances of some European states, including Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, Spain, and Belgium, raised concern that the financial crisis had moved from private-sector banks to public-sector balance sheets. These concerns led to the downgrading of certain government debt and widening of bond yield spreads. The Euro zone countries and International Monetary Fund responded with loans that were conditional on some sovereign borrowers taking drastic austerity measures.
Inflation vs. Deflation
Despite moderate inflation in most economies during 2010, economists warned that continued government budget deficits and monetary expansion would drive up prices. Conversely, the US central bank was concerned that inflation was so low that the economy might slip into a deflationary cycle. In fact, potential deflation was one of the main reasons the Fed implemented QE2 and pumped $600 billion into the banking system. By year end, the Fed indicated that the deflation threat was easing.
Higher Commodity Prices
Commodities climbed during 2010, with many sectors reaching price levels not seen in decades. Copper prices, which are considered a bellwether of economic activity, rose 33%, and oil gained 15% to finish 2010 over $91 a barrel. Agricultural commodities, a traditionally volatile sector, saw even more extreme price swings. Concern about a weakening dollar drove up precious metals, with gold exceeding $1,400 per ounce and silver up 81% for the year.
Investor Confidence
In the wake of the financial crisis, investors who have become more risk averse or accepted the tenets of a "new normal" in the economy and markets chose to remain in fixed income assets. Bond funds in the US received a massive net inflow of money in the past two years, suggesting that many investors who fled stocks may have missed out on much of the rebound in equities. Throughout most of 2010, investment flows were leaving the US stock market and moving to emerging markets. In December, flows turned sharply positive in the US, with an estimated $22 billion directed to US stock funds.
2010 Investment Overview
After a slow start and a tough second quarter, most markets in the world ended the year with positive results. The US market indices accounted for most of the top performance, with the Russell 2000 Growth Index delivering a 29.09% return for the year. US small cap and small value also were among the top performers. (All returns are in US dollars.)
Most developed markets around the world logged positive returns, with thirty-seven of the forty-five countries that MSCI tracks gaining ground in both local currency and US dollar terms. Scandinavia and Asia had particularly high returns. Overall, the MSCI World ex USA index gained 9%, and the MSCI Emerging Markets Index gained 19% for the year.
In the last few months of the year, the highest returns were generally experienced by countries whose economies are dominated by oil and commodity exports—for example, Canada, Norway, Russia, and South Africa. Other emerging markets, such as Thailand, Philippines, Chile, and Peru had strong returns. China, despite its continued high profile and news of economic growth, was one of the lowest-performing emerging markets.
The US dollar lost ground against the Canadian dollar and most Pacific Rim currencies, which helped dollar-denominated equity returns from those countries. The US dollar gained against the euro and British pound.
Along the market capitalization dimension, small caps outperformed large caps by substantial margins in the US, developed, and emerging markets. Value stocks underperformed growth stocks across all market capitalization segments in the US and had more mixed results in international developed and emerging markets.
Fixed income performed generally well, especially for investors who took term and credit risk, with long-term, high-yield bonds returning more than 20%. Real estate securities had excellent returns, performing comparably to the equity asset classes.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
