Are Interest Rates Signaling a Recession?

January 31, 2023 — Sam H. Fawaz

According to Investopedia, the yield curve shows the relationship between bond yields (the interest rates on the vertical axis) and bond maturity (the time on the horizontal axis).

Long-term bonds generally provide higher yields than short-term bonds because investors demand higher returns to compensate for the risk of lending money over an extended period. Occasionally, however, this relationship flips, and investors are willing to accept lower yields in return for the relative safety of longer-term bonds. This is called a yield curve inversion because a graph showing bond yields in relation to maturity is essentially turned upside down.

Imagine going to the bank and being told that a 1-year certificate of deposit yields 4.0%, but the 5-year CD only yields 3.0%. Few people would lock up their money for five times as long and earn a lower rate. This is an example of a yield inversion.

A yield curve could also apply to any bonds that carry similar risk, but the most studied curve is for U.S. Treasury securities, and the most common focal point is the relationship between the two-year and 10-year Treasury notes. Although Treasuries are often referred to as bonds, maturities up to one year are called bills, while maturities of two to 10 years are called notes. Only 20- and 30-year Treasuries are officially called bonds.

The two-year yield has been higher than the 10-year yield since July 2022, and beginning in late November, the difference has been at levels not seen since 1981. The biggest separation in 2022 came on December 7, when the two-year was 4.26%, and the 10-year was 3.42%, a difference of 0.84%. Other short-term Treasuries have also offered higher yields;  the highest yields in early 2023 were for the six-month and one-year Treasury bills. (1) 

Predicting Recessions

An inversion of the two-year and ten-year Treasury notes has preceded each recession over the past 50 years, reliably predicting a recession within the next one to two years. (2)  A 2018 Federal Reserve study suggested that an inversion of the three-month and ten-year Treasuries may be an even more reliable indicator, predicting a recession within about 12 months. (3) The three-month and ten-year Treasuries have been inverted since late October 2022, and in December 2022 and early January 2023, the difference was often greater than the inversion of the two- and 10-year notes. (4)

Weakness or Inflation Control?

Yield curve inversions do not cause a recession; rather they indicate a shift in investor sentiment that may reflect underlying economic weakness. A normal yield curve suggests investors believe the economy will continue to grow and interest rates will likely rise with the growth. In this scenario, an investor typically would want a premium to tie up capital in long-term bonds and potentially miss out on other opportunities in the future.

Conversely, an inversion suggests that investors see economic challenges that are likely to push interest rates down and typically would instead invest and lock in longer-term bonds at today’s yields. This increases demand for long-term bonds, driving prices up and yields down.

Note that bond prices and yields move in opposite directions; the more you pay for a bond that pays a given coupon interest rate, the lower the yield will be, and vice-versa.

The current situation is not so simple. The Federal Reserve has rapidly raised the benchmark federal funds rate (short-term) to combat inflation, increasing it from near 0% in March 2022 to 4.50%–4.75% today. The fed funds rate is the rate charged for overnight loans within the Federal Reserve System.  The funds rate directly affects other short-term rates, which is why yields on short-term Treasuries have increased rapidly. The fact that 10-year Treasuries have lagged the increase in the federal funds rate may mean that investors believe a recession is coming. But it could also reflect the confidence that the Fed is winning the battle against inflation and will lower rates over the next few years. This is in line with the Federal Reserve’s (The Fed) projections, which see the funds rate peaking at 5.0%–5.25% by the end of 2023 and then dropping to 4.0%–4.25% in 2024 and 3.0%–3.25% in 2025. (5)

Inflation has been slowing somewhat in October-December, but there is a long way to go to reach the Fed’s target of 2% inflation for a healthy economy. (6)  The fundamental question remains the same as it has been since the Fed launched its aggressive rate increases: Will it require a recession to control inflation, or can it be controlled without shifting the economy into reverse?

Other Indicators and Forecasts

The yield curve is one of many indicators that economists consider when making economic projections. Among the most closely watched are the ten leading economic indicators published by the Conference Board, with data on employment, interest rates, manufacturing, stock prices, housing, and consumer sentiment. The Leading Economic Index, which includes all ten indicators, fell for nine consecutive months through November 2022. Conference Board economists predict a recession beginning around the end of 2022 and lasting until mid-2023. (7) Recessions are not officially declared by the National Bureau of Economic Research until they are underway. The Conference Board view would suggest the United States may already be in a recession.

In The Wall Street Journal’s October 2022 Economic Forecasting Survey, most economists believed the United States would enter a recession within the next 12 months, with an average expectation of a relatively mild 8-month downturn. (8) More recent surveys of economists for the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association and Wolters Kluwer Blue Chip Economic Indicators also found a consensus for a mild recession in 2023. (9)

For now, the economy appears strong despite high inflation, with a low December 2022 unemployment rate of 3.5% and an estimated 2.9% 4th quarter growth rate for real gross domestic product (GDP). Nonetheless, the indicators and surveys discussed above suggest an economic downturn in the next year or so. This would likely cause some job losses and other temporary financial hardship, but a brief recession may be the necessary price to tame inflation and put the U.S. economy on a more stable track for future growth.

If you would like to review your current investment portfolio or discuss any other financial planning matters, please don’t hesitate to contact us or visit our website at http://www.ydfs.com. We are a fee-only fiduciary financial planning firm that always puts your interests first.  If you are not a client yet, an initial consultation is complimentary and there is never any pressure or hidden sales pitch. We start with a specific assessment of your personal situation. There is no rush and no cookie-cutter approach. Each client is different, and so are your financial plan and investment objectives.

(1), (4) U.S. Treasury, 2023

(2)  Financial Times, December 7, 2022

(3) Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, August 27, 2018

(5) Federal Reserve, 2022

(6) U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2022

(7)  The Conference Board, December 22, 2022

(8) The Wall Street Journal, October 16, 2022

(9) SIFMA, December 2022

Posted in American Economy, bonds, economy, investing, markets. Tags: , , . Leave a Comment »

Rate Hike Hype

December 15, 2015 — Sam H. Fawaz

While I’m still a tad skeptical, we will almost surely see the U.S. Federal Reserve Board (Fed) start the long process of ending its intrusion into the interest rate markets, by allowing short-term rates to rise starting on Wednesday. It will be the first time the Fed has raised rates since 2006, and for some it will mark the beginning of the final chapter of the Great Recession.

Since 2008, as most of us know, returns on short-term bonds have been at or near zero percent, which is a consequence of the Fed keeping the Federal Funds rate—the rate at which it will lend banks virtually unlimited amounts of money, short-term—at 0.125%. The average Fed Funds rate has historically been 3.5% to 4.0%, so this is a considerable amount of stimulus.

At the same time, the Fed has purchased more than $3.5 trillion worth of Treasury securities and home mortgage pools as part of its quantitative easing (QE) programs, bidding aggressively against much smaller buyers, which is another way of saying: forcing the rates on these bonds down closer to zero.

Pulling back out of these interventions is going to be tricky, in part because shifts in interest rates have a direct impact on a still-fragile U.S. economy (higher rates mean higher borrowing costs, potentially less corporate investment and lower profits), and even trickier because we don’t know how investors will react. In the past, the markets have panicked at the mere mention of a cutback in Fed involvement, and (more recently) have also risen on the same news, presumably because people drew encouragement from the confidence the Fed was showing in the strength and resilience of the U.S. economy.

There are also some tricky mechanical problems. The central bank will try to control the extent that short-term rates rise and fall by raising the interest it pays to banks for the reserves held at the Fed, and also cautiously raising the amount it pays money market funds for short-term trades known as “reverse repurchase agreements.” The mechanics are highly technical and complicated—and still unproven, although there are reports that the Fed has been conducting tests for the past two years.

As the markets react, either upwards or downwards, there are a few things to keep in mind. First, despite the headlines soon to be blaring from every financial section of every newspaper in the country, the rate is expected to move very modestly from .125% to .375%—clearly a small first step in a long journey toward the long-term average. After each step—prominently including this one—the Fed will evaluate the consequences before deciding to make future changes. If the economy slows, or if there are signs that inflation is falling below the Fed’s 2% annual target, it could delay the next move by months or even years. That caution greatly reduces the danger of any kind of serious economic pullback.

It’s also worth noting that the Fed has announced no plans to sell the nearly $4.2 trillion worth of various bonds—including the aforementioned Treasuries and mortgages—that it owns. At the moment, the bank is simply rolling over the portfolio, meaning it reinvests $21 billion a month as bonds mature. Eventually, most observers expect the reinvestment to stop and the Fed to allow the huge bond holdings to mature and fall off of its balance sheet. The fact that this is not being done currently reflects the exquisite degree of caution among Fed policymakers, who don’t want to rock the boat too fast or too hard.

Finally, some have wondered about the future of mortgage interest rates as the Fed begins a cautious exit from the bond markets. Interestingly, recent history shows that mortgages haven’t been especially influenced by changes in the benchmark rate. The last time we saw extremely low interest rates, after the tech bubble burst in the early 2000’s, the Fed brought its Fed funds rate down to 1%. It began raising rates by 0.25% a quarter starting in the summer of 2004, but over the next four months, the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage actually fell from 6.3% to 5.58%. By the time of the last increase in the summer of 2006, mortgage rates were running at 6.68%, just a half-percent higher than they had been at the previous Fed funds rate low.

Nobody knows exactly what to expect when the announcement comes on Wednesday, but you can look for the investment markets to bounce around a bit more than usual, and economists—including the teams employed by the Fed—to examine every scrap of data about the impact on the economy over the next quarter. At that time, Fed policymakers will face another decision, and there is no reason to expect them to be less cautious than they have been recently. For many of us, the rate rise should be reason for celebration, a sign that the long recession and period of economic uncertainty is finally starting—carefully—to be put in our rear view mirror.

If you would like to review your current investment portfolio or discuss any other financial planning matters, please don’t hesitate to contact us or visit our website at http://www.ydfs.com. We are a fee-only fiduciary financial planning firm that always puts your interests first.  If you are not a client yet, an initial consultation is complimentary and there is never any pressure or hidden sales pitch.

Sources:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/where-we-live/wp/2015/12/14/what-a-fed-rate-hike-could-mean-to-mortgage-borrowers/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/14/the-federal-reserve-will-likely-raise-interest-rates-this-week-this-is-what-happens-next/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/12/14/this-week-december-13/77155714/

The MoneyGeek thanks guest writer Bob Veres for his contribution to this post

Posted in American Economy, Financial Planning, General, investing, retirement planning, Stock Market. Tags: , , , . Leave a Comment »

The Swiss Franc and Your Portfolio

January 21, 2015 — Sam H. Fawaz

You’ve almost certainly read about the recent drop in the global (and U.S.) stock markets, as a result of the “shocking” announcement by the Swiss central banking authority that it would not force the Swiss franc to trade at 1.2 euros.  Be prepared to be shocked: you can now buy a Swiss franc with a euro.

If you’re like most of us, you’ve probably wondered why this shocking development would have anything to do with the enterprise value of the individual companies that make up the various global indices.  What’s the story here?

The story is actually pretty simple—and surprisingly, isn’t being told very clearly in the press.  The Swiss National Bank had been artificially holding the Swiss franc at 1.2 euros for the past three years.  Why?  Because the value of the euro has been sinking on global markets.  A lower euro means everything manufactured in the Eurozone is less expensive for outside buyers, which is great for exports. By keeping the franc at a steady cost vs. the euro, the Swiss National Bank was protecting Swiss watches, chocolate products and high-end medical diagnostic equipment from becoming more expensive in the countries where Switzerland does most of its export business.

This policy suddenly became more difficult, in part because the European Central bank is expected to announce, on Thursday January 22, what economists delicately call “monetary easing”—buying government bonds, lowering interest rates, and giving banks and corporations more access to more euros.  The inevitable result would be a lower euro compared to other currencies.  Every time the Swiss Central Bank buys euros and sells francs, it is putting money in the pockets of global currency traders and a variety of hot money speculators who have bet that the Swiss will continue their policy.  These traders would have reaped a huge windfall if the euro dropped and the bank continued to fight an increasingly expensive battle to maintain parity.  The effect would have been a transfer of billions of dollars from Swiss taxpayers to shady speculators.

But why does any of this affect the value of U.S. stocks, or stocks in Europe, for that matter?  Why were floor traders on the New York Stock Exchange experiencing what one described as ‘once-in-a-career’ market turbulence, and others described as a ‘massive flight to safety?’  Certain exporting companies in Switzerland will be negatively affected and have to adjust their profit margins downward to stay competitive.  But U.S. companies aren’t selling their goods and services abroad in Swiss francs, and European companies will be slightly more competitive, globally, after the expected monetary easing announcement.

The only answer that makes any sense is that hot money traders dislike any kind of surprises, and they hit the “sell” button whenever they’re startled by news that they didn’t anticipate.  Then they wait until they have a better understanding of what’s going on.  And, since these short-term traders make up a majority of all the actual buys and sells, the markets tend to trade lower even though no fundamental economic reason exists for them to.

This provides a great opportunity for all of us to see the difference between short-term headline moves in the market and long-term fundamental shifts.  Make a note to, a month from now, see if you still remember the fact that the Swiss central bank is no longer supporting the franc against the euro.  At the same time, look to see if any major shift has occurred in the business operations or profitability of U.S. companies due to this adjustment in currency values overseas.

There will be known and unknown consequences as a result of this action.  Other countries may decide to manipulate their currencies as well.  Over the coming months, you might have to pay a little more for a Swiss watch, and chocolate manufactured in Switzerland might be pricier as well.  You will want to steer clear of parking your money in the Swiss central banking system, which is now paying an interest rate of negative three quarters of a percent.  If you’re a global options trader who took the wrong side of the bet, this was terrible news for your returns this year.  But the underlying value of the stocks in a diversified investment portfolio aren’t likely to become less valuable based on the latest trading price of options denominated in Swiss francs.

If you would like to discuss your portfolio or any financial planning matters, please don’t hesitate to contact us or visit our website at http://www.ydfs.com. We are a fee-only fiduciary financial planning firm that always puts your interests first.  If you are not a client yet, an initial consultation is complimentary and there is never any pressure or hidden sales pitch.

Sources:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/marcelmichelson/2015/01/16/swiss-franc-u-turn-is-realistic-move-as-snb-cannot-stop-tide/

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2015-01-15/swiss-franc-surges-to-record-high-against-euro-as-snb-ends-cap

http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/15/investing/interest-rates-negative-switzerland-ecb/index.html

Posted in Fee-only, Financial Planning, General, investing, markets, retirement planning. Tags: , , , . Leave a Comment »

2014 Investment Report: Dare to Believe?

January 4, 2015 — Sam H. Fawaz

Looking back on 2014, people are going to say it was a great year to be an investor. They won’t remember how uncertain the journey felt right up to the last day of a year that saw the S&P 500 close at a record level on 53 different days. Think back over a good year in the market. Was there ever a time when you felt confidently bullish that the markets were taking off and delivering double-digit returns? I know I didn’t.

The Wilshire 5000–the broadest measure of U.S. stocks and bonds—finished the year up 13.14%, on the basis of a strong 5.88% return in the final three months of the year. The comparable Russell 3000 index will go into the history books gaining 12.56% in 2014.

The Wilshire U.S. Large Cap index gained 14.62% in 2014, with 6.06% of that coming in the final quarter. The Russell 1000 large-cap index gained 13.24%, while the widely-quoted S&P 500 index of large company stocks posted a gain of 4.39% in the final quarter of the year, to finish up 11.39%. The index completed its sixth consecutive year in positive territory, although this was the second-weakest yearly gain since the 2008 market meltdown.

The Wilshire U.S. Mid-Cap index gained a flat 10% in 2014, with a 5.77% return in the final quarter of the year. The Russell Midcap Index gained 13.22% in 2014.

Small company stocks, as measured by the Wilshire U.S. Small-Cap, gave investors a 7.66% return, all of it (and more) coming from a strong 8.57% gain in the final three months of the year. The comparable Russell 2000 Small-Cap Index was up 4.89% for the year. Meanwhile, the technology-heavy Nasdaq Composite Index gained 14.39% for the year.

While the U.S. economy and markets were delivering double-digit returns, the international markets were more subdued. The broad-based EAFE index of companies in developed economies lost 7.35% in dollar terms in 2014, in large part because European stocks declined 9.55%. Emerging markets stocks of less developed countries, as represented by the EAFE EM index, fared better, but still lost 4.63% for the year. Outside the U.S., the countries that saw the largest stock market rises included Argentina (up 57%), China (up 52%), India (up 29.8%) and Japan (up 7.1%).

Looking over the other investment categories, real estate investments, as measured by the Wilshire U.S. REIT index, was up a robust 33.95% for the year, with 17.03% gains in the final quarter alone. Commodities, as measured by the S&P GSCI index, proved to be an enormous drag on investment portfolios, losing 33.06% of their value, largely because of steep recent drops in gold and oil prices.

Part of the reason that U.S. stocks performed so well when investors seemed to be constantly looking over their shoulders is interest rates—specifically, the fact that interest rates remained stubbornly low, aided, in no small part, by a Federal Reserve that seems determined not to let the markets dictate bond yields until the economy is firmly and definitively on its feet. The Bloomberg U.S. Corporate Bond Index now has an effective yield of 3.13%, giving its investors a windfall return of 7.27% for the year due to falling bond rates. 30-year Treasuries are yielding 2.75%, and 10-year Treasuries currently yield 2.17%. At the low end, 3-month T-bills are still yielding a miniscule 0.04%; 6-month bills are only slightly more generous, at 0.12%.

Normally when the U.S. investment markets have posted six consecutive years of gains, five of them in double-digit territory, you would expect to see a kind of euphoria sweep through the ranks of investors. But for most of 2014, investors in aggregate seemed to vacillate between caution and fear, hanging on every economic and jobs report, paying close attention to the Federal Reserve Board’s pronouncements, seemingly trying to find the bad news in the long, steady economic recovery.

One of the most interesting aspects of 2014—and, indeed, the entire U.S. bull market period since 2009—is that so many people think portfolio diversification was a bad thing for their wealth. When global stocks are down compared with the U.S. markets, U.S. investors tend to look at their statements and wonder why they’re lagging the S&P index that they see on the nightly news. This year, commodity-related investments were also down significantly, producing even more drag during what was otherwise a good investment year.

But that’s the point of diversification: when the year began, none of us knew whether the U.S., Europe, both or neither would finish the year in positive territory. Holding some of each is a prudent strategy, yet the eye inevitably turns to the declining investment which, in hindsight, pulled the overall returns down a bit. At the end of next year, we may be looking at U.S. stocks with the same gimlet eye and feeling grateful that we were invested in global stocks as a way to contain the damage; there’s no way to know in advance. Indeed, we increased our allocations to overseas markets in 2014 as a matter of prudent re-balancing.  For 2014, that proved to be a tad early, providing a bit of a headwind.

Is a decline in U.S. stocks likely? One can never predict these things in advance, but the usual recipe for a terrible market year is a period right beforehand when investors finally throw caution to the winds, and those who never joined the bull market run decide it’s time to crash the party. The markets have a habit of punishing overconfidence and latecomers, but we don’t seem to be seeing that quite yet.

What we ARE seeing is kind of boring: a long, slow economic recovery in the U.S., a slow housing recovery, healthy but not spectacular job creation in the U.S., stagnation and fears of another Greek default in Europe, stocks trading at values slightly higher than historical norms and a Fed policy that seems to be waiting for certainty or a sign from above that the recovery will survive a return to normal interest rates.

On the plus side, we also saw a 46% decline in crude oil prices, saving U.S. drivers approximately $14 billion this year. On the minus side, investments in the energy sector during 2014 proved be a downer to portfolios. Oil, like most commodities, tends to be cyclical, and should turn back upward should the rest of the world find its footing and show healthier signs of growth. Should crude continue to slide, we may see collateral damage in the form of lost jobs, shuttered drilling projects and loan defaults by independent, not so well capitalized producers. This would be your classic case of “too much of a good thing.”

The Fed has signaled that it plans to take its foot off of interest rates sometime in the middle of 2015. The questions that nobody can answer are important ones: Will the recovery gain steam and make stocks more valuable in the year ahead? Will Europe stabilize and ultimately recover, raising the value of European stocks? Will oil prices stabilize and remain low, giving a continuing boost to the economy? Or will, contrary to long history, the markets flop without any kind of a euphoric top?

We can’t answer any of these questions, of course. What we do know is that since 1958, the U.S. markets, as measured by the S&P 500 index, have been up 53% of all trading days, 58% of all months, 63% of all quarters and 72% of the years. Over 10-year rolling time periods, the markets have been up 88% of the time. These figures do not include the value of the dividends that investors were paid for hanging onto their stock investments during each of the time periods.

Yet since 1875, the S&P 500 has never risen for seven calendar years in a row. Could 2015 break that streak? Stay tuned.

Sources:

Wilshire index data: http://www.wilshire.com/Indexes/calculator/

Russell index data: http://www.russell.com/indexes/data/daily_total_returns_us.asp

S&P index data: http://www.standardandpoors.com/indices/sp-500/en/us/?indexId=spusa-500-usduf–p-us-l–

http://money.cnn.com/2014/09/30/investing/stocks-market-september-slump/index.html

Nasdaq index data: http://quicktake.morningstar.com/Index/IndexCharts.aspx?Symbol=COMP

International indices: http://www.mscibarra.com/products/indices/international_equity_indices/performance.html

Commodities index data: http://us.spindices.com/index-family/commodities/sp-gsci

Treasury market rates: http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/rates-bonds/government-bonds/us/

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/thetell/2014/06/30/one-chart-explains-the-unexpected-first-half-treasury-rally/

Aggregate corporate bond rates: https://indices.barcap.com/show?url=Benchmark_Indices/Aggregate/Bond_Indices

Aggregate corporate bond rates: http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/rates-bonds/corporate-bonds/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/31/us-usa-markets-2015-analysis-idUSKBN0K908820141231

http://moneyover55.about.com/od/howtoinvest/a/bearmarkets.htm?utm_term=historical%20performance%20of%20s&p%20500&utm_content=p1-main-7-title&utm_medium=sem&utm_source=msn&utm_campaign=adid-ac372107-3fb5-4c61-a1f3-6ab4e1340551-0-ab_msb_ocode-28813&ad=semD&an=msn_s&am=broad&q=historical%20performance%20of%20s&p%20500&dqi=S%2526P%2520500%2520yearly%2520performance&o=28813&l=sem&qsrc=999&askid=ac372107-3fb5-4c61-a1f3-6ab4e1340551-0-ab_msb

Posted in Financial Planning, General, investing, markets, retirement, retirement planning. Tags: , , , , . Leave a Comment »

As Inflation Fears Fade, Deflation Moves Front and Center

December 31, 2014 — Sam H. Fawaz

As the Federal Reserve winds down its massive bond-buying program, the widely predicted after effects — rising interest rates and inflation — have thus far failed to materialize. The yield on the bond market’s bellwether 10-year Treasury note, which started 2014 at 3.03%, had fallen to 2.33% as of October 29.1 Similarly, inflation, as measured by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics key benchmark, the Consumer Price Index, has risen just 1.7% in the past year and has averaged 1.6% since the Fed first initiated its bond-buying program four years ago.2

Currently, concerns over inflation have been replaced by an opposite economic condition: deflation, defined as two quarters of falling prices within a 12-month period.3

Deflation, a Good News/Bad News Story

The paradox of deflation is that it can create good as well as bad conditions. When prices on essential goods and services drop, consumers are left with more disposable income to spend on nonessential items. Case in point: Plunging oil prices have spelled relief at the pumps, as the average national price for gas has now dropped below $3.00 a gallon for the first time since 2010.4

But when prices tend to fall across the board, the effect can turn negative for the economy, companies, and governments alike. Consumers put off making major purchases in the hope that prices will fall even further. That purchasing stalemate can be disastrous for a consumer-driven economy like the United States’, which garners about 70% of its GDP from consumer spending.

When spending stalls, companies’ revenues suffer and pressure mounts to cut costs by laying off workers, freezing or reducing wages, or raising the price of the goods they produce — all of which can further stymie consumer spending and deepen the deflationary cycle.

Debt is the other major problem associated with deflation. On the consumer side, when wages are stagnant or declining, consumer spending power declines, and it becomes more difficult to pay off debts — even fixed-rate debt such as home mortgages — because the value of that debt relative to income increases.

The same scenario plays out for corporations and governments, causing cash-flow shortages, tax revenue shortfalls, liquidity problems, and even bankruptcy.5 Deflation fears are particularly pronounced in Europe, where sluggish economic growth has much of the continent teetering on the brink of recession. To a lesser extent Japan and China are facing similar woes.

On the Right Side of the Problem

The good news/bad news nature of deflation has everything to do with what is driving the drop in prices of goods and services. For instance, if it is a lack of demand — as many economists say is currently the case in the Eurozone — deflation could be damaging. If, however, it is due to a boost in supply — such as the oil and gas boom in the United States — it can prove beneficial to economic growth.6

Either way, analysts say that U.S. investors should benefit from current conditions for the time being. The S&P 500 Index has gained 6.3% thus far this year (as of October 26), while the Stoxx Europe 600 Index has fallen 0.3%. Meanwhile, virtually all major currencies are devaluing against the dollar in an attempt to export deflation to the United States.6

If you would like to discuss your current portfolio asset allocation or any other financial planning matters, please don’t hesitate to contact us or visit our website at http://www.ydfs.com. We are a fee-only fiduciary financial planning firm that always puts your interests first.  If you are not a client yet, an initial consultation is complimentary and there is never any pressure or hidden sales pitch.

I wish you great health and prosperity in 2015!

 

Sources:

1USA Today, “First Take: Beginning of the end of easy money,” October 29, 2014.

2U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index, September 2014.

3The Economist, “The dangers of deflation: The pendulum swings to the pit,” October 25, 2014.

4AAA’s Fuel Gauge Report, November 3, 2014.

5Yahoo Finance, “Why deflation is so scary,” November 3, 2014.

6Bloomberg, “U.S. Gains From Good Deflation as Europe Faces the Bad Kind,” October 26, 2014.

Posted in Fee-only, Financial Planning, General, investing, markets, retirement planning. Tags: , , , . Leave a Comment »

Is Your Portfolio “In Style” or Making a Bad Fashion Statement?

December 24, 2014 — Sam H. Fawaz

It is fairly common knowledge that a retirement portfolio’s carefully constructed asset allocation can become unbalanced in two cases: When you alter your investment strategy and when market performance causes the value of some funds in your portfolio to rise or fall more dramatically than others. But did you know there is also a third scenario? Your portfolio can become unbalanced due to unexpected changes in the funds’ holdings.

Getting the Drift

The phenomenon known as “style drift” generally occurs when a fund’s manager or management team strays beyond the parameters of the fund’s stated objective in pursuit of better returns. For example, this may occur when a growth fund begins investing significantly in value stocks or when a large-company fund begins investing in the stocks of small and midsized companies. As a result, the fund’s name may not accurately reflect its strategy.

If style drift occurs within the funds held in your portfolio, it could alter your overall risk and return potential, which may influence your ability to effectively pursue your financial goals.

Feeling the Effects

While some fund managers embrace a strategy that provides significant flexibility to help boost returns, and indeed such flexibility often proves quite successful, investors need to remember that too much flexibility can also present a threat to their own portfolio’s level of diversification. Investors need to consider their ability to tolerate unexpected changes in pursuit of higher returns.

For example, let us assume an investor allocates her equity investments equally between growth funds and value funds with the hope of managing risk and increasing exposure to different types of opportunities. If the manager of the growth fund begins to invest heavily in value stocks, the investor could end up owning two funds with very similar characteristics and a much greater level of risk than she intended.

Truth in Labeling?

Although most investment companies, including those represented in your retirement plan, adhere to stringent fund management standards, you may not want to simply judge a book by its cover, so to speak. An occasional portfolio review can help ensure that you remain comfortable with each fund’s management strategy.

For a comprehensive look at each fund and to evaluate its potential role in your portfolio, take the time to study its prospectus and annual report to determine how much flexibility the fund manager has in security selection. Also, look carefully at the fund’s holdings to see if they are in line with the stated objective. If you discover something that appears amiss, it may be appropriate to rebalance your portfolio accordingly.

If you would like to discuss your current portfolio asset allocation or any other financial planning matters, please don’t hesitate to contact us or visit our website at http://www.ydfs.com. We are a fee-only fiduciary financial planning firm that always puts your interests first.  If you are not a client yet, an initial consultation is complimentary and there is never any pressure or hidden sales pitch.

Have a Merry Christmas!

Posted in Fee-only, Financial Planning, General, investing, markets, retirement planning. Tags: , , , , , , . 1 Comment »

How Do the Markets Really Work?

December 21, 2014 — Sam H. Fawaz

We all do it.  But what do we really know about investing?  A recent post about investing wisdom features a lot of interesting (and often overlooked) facts and figures, plus some insights from Warren Buffett, Jeremy Siegel, William Bernstein, Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman and a few economists you may have heard of.

Regarding market predictions, the post had this to say: The phrase “double-dip recession” was mentioned 10.8 million times in 2010 and 2011, according to Google. It never came. There were virtually no mentions of “financial collapse” in 2006 and 2007. It did come. A similar story can be told virtually every year.

According to Bloomberg, the 50 stocks in the S&P 500 that Wall Street rated the lowest at the end of 2011 outperformed the overall index by 7 percentage points over the following year.

Many of the items offered insight into how our investment markets actually work.  For instance:

  • Since 1871, the market has spent 40% of all years either rising or falling more than 20%. Roaring booms and crushing busts are perfectly normal.
  • Apple increased more than 6,000% from 2002 to 2012, but declined on 48% of all trading days during that time period. (Investing is never a straight path up.)
  • Polls show Americans for the last 25 years have said the economy is in a state of decline. Pessimism in the face of advancement is the norm.
  • A broad index of U.S. stocks increased 2,000-fold between 1928 and 2013, but lost at least 20% of its value 20 times during that period. People would be less scared of volatility if they knew how common it was.
  • There were 272 automobile companies in 1909. Through consolidation and failure, three emerged on top, two of which went bankrupt. Spotting a promising trend and identifying a winning investment are two different things.
  • According to economist Tim Duy, “As long as people have babies, as long as capital depreciates, technology evolves, and tastes and preferences change, there is a powerful underlying impetus for growth that is almost certain to reveal itself in any reasonably well-managed economy.”

The post had a few zingers about some of the best-paid executives in the financial and investment community:

  • Twenty-five hedge fund managers took home $21.2 billion in 2013 for delivering an average performance of 9.1%, versus the 32.4% you could have made in an index fund. Hedge funds are a great business to work in — not so much to invest in.
  • In 1989, the CEOs of the seven largest U.S. banks earned an average of 100 times what a typical household made. By 2007, that had risen to more than 500 times. By 2008, several of those banks no longer existed.

And finally, if you want to understand the difference between daily fluctuation and the underlying growth of value in the markets, consider this:

Investor Ralph Wagoner once explained how markets work, recalled by Bill Bernstein: “He likens the market to an excitable dog on a very long leash in New York City, darting randomly in every direction. The dog’s owner is walking from Columbus Circle, through Central Park, to the Metropolitan Museum. At any one moment, there is no predicting which way the pooch will lurch. But in the long run, you know he’s heading northeast at an average speed of three miles per hour. What is astonishing is that almost all of the market players, big and small, seem to have their eye on the dog, and not the owner.”

If you would like to discuss your current portfolio or any financial planning matters, please don’t hesitate to contact us or visit our website at http://www.ydfs.com. We are a fee-only fiduciary financial planning firm that always puts your interests first.  If you are not a client yet, an initial consultation is complimentary and there is never any pressure or hidden sales pitch.

Source:

http://www.businessinsider.com/things-everyone-should-know-about-investing-and-the-economy-2014-12

Posted in Financial Planning, General, investing, markets. Tags: , , , , . Leave a Comment »

Investor Know Thyself

December 10, 2014 — Sam H. Fawaz

In an ideal world, emotions would play a very small role in the way people invest and manage their money. Everyone would thoroughly research their options, maintain realistic expectations, and keep counterproductive habits under control.

But in the real world, even well-informed investors sometimes make emotionally charged decisions that may threaten their ability to stay focused on important financial goals, such as accumulating enough money for retirement. In fact, such missteps are so common that many academics have done extensive research on “investor psychology” or “behavioral finance” to explain why some people tend to keep encountering the same obstacles in their financial lives.

Behavior Insights

As you might imagine, different financial attitudes can result in very different consequences. For example, the behavior known as “anchoring” is the tendency for investors to hold on to a belief based on their own limited experience, despite the availability of contradictory information.

For instance, someone who lived through the Great Depression might be more likely to be a conservative investor, while someone who did very well in the market during the 1990s might tend to be a more aggressive investor. Of course, history shows that that type of decline or growth experienced by such individuals, is more the exception than the norm. As such, one possible result of anchoring is making long-term investment decisions based on misguided performance expectations or incomplete facts.

Overconfidence in one’s own abilities is another mindset that could make it more difficult to achieve lasting financial security. Why? Because it may lead investors to ignore sound advice, misunderstand goals, and potentially implement inappropriate investment strategies. On the other hand, a lack of confidence may be to blame for the “fear of loss” (or “fear of regret”) that causes some nervous investors to adjust their portfolios too often — or not often enough.

You’ve Got Personality

It can also be insightful to think about what type of “financial personality” you have. “Impulsives,” for example, are prone to spending spontaneously and not saving enough. “Planners,” however, are in the habit of setting aside as much as possible and sticking to an appropriate investment strategy.

If you would like to discuss your financial personality or any other financial planning matters, please don’t hesitate to contact us or visit our website at http://www.ydfs.com. We are a fee-only fiduciary financial planning firm that always puts your interests first.  If you are not a client yet, an initial consultation is complimentary and there is never any pressure or hidden sales pitch.

Posted in Fee-only, Financial Planning, General, investing. Tags: , , . 1 Comment »

When Diversification Fails

November 26, 2014 — Sam H. Fawaz

Correlation coefficients are one of the most complicated areas of the asset management world, but the idea behind them is pretty simple–or, at least, most of us thought it was until the 2008-2009 meltdown.  The basic idea is that you study the price movements of, say, the stocks of large companies (represented by the S&P 500), and then look at the price movements of, say, stocks in the NAREIT (real estate) index.  You find that, on average, they tend to march to different drummers; when one goes up, the other goes up less, or it may go down.  When the other goes down, the first asset may go up or stay the same.  They have, in the parlance of experts, a low correlation.

These correlations between various flavors of stocks and real estate, commodities, bonds and other assets are expressed mathematically, and are one of the factors that professional investment advisors take into account when they build portfolios.  Whenever one kind of asset is going down, ideally you want something else in the portfolio to be going up, responding to different influences.

But all of these carefully-crafted models and all the higher mathematics went seriously awry during the 2008-2009 downturn, when every risk asset–from commodities to real estate to stocks–went down in concert as if the correlation coefficients had suddenly decided to converge at exactly the wrong time.  How could this happen?

At a recent investment conference, the outlines of a possible explanation began to emerge.  It was noted that all of those risk assets had one thing in common: they were financed or owned by the same small number of investment banking and brokerage institutions.  When Lehman Brothers went bankrupt and Bear Stearns was essentially folded into J.P. Morgan, when Citigroup and Merrill Lynch and Goldman Sachs suddenly had to rebuild their balance sheets, they all needed to sell assets to raise money.  The result: the world’s largest owners of risk assets were all desperate sellers at the same time.  Suddenly, all those assets, no matter how different their underlying economics, were in the same boat: they had to be sold so that companies could meet their net capital requirements and stave off bankruptcy.

And, of course, this caused those assets to have something else in common: they were dropping in value so fast that the average investor was scared out of his wits.  Instead of a run on the banks, as we saw in the 1930s, there was a run on the markets, fueled by the same kind of panic: will I be able to get my money out before it disappears?

This explains how the normal historical correlations failed to protect even the best-diversified portfolios.  The discussion then turned to: is there anything we can do about this going forward?  The solutions under discussion ranged from buying expensive hedges (which, of course, become dramatically more expensive during a panic), to selling into the teeth of the storm (and locking in significant losses), and, in general, the answers weren’t very satisfying.  The consensus was twofold: first, these kinds of panics don’t happen very often.  Interestingly, the mathematics of modern portfolio theory suggest that a 2008-like downturn should happen every 65-80 years, and that happens to be just about how long it was between the Great Depression and the Great Recession.

Second: these panics seem, in retrospect, to be great times to buy risk-based securities.  When others are selling in a panic, you can almost name your price, and to the extent that you don’t believe that civilization is coming to an end, you trust that sooner or later the stocks you bought cheaply will, when the panic subsides, rediscover their true value.  The trouble, as one advisor put it, is: how are you going to tell your frightened clients, in the height of a storm, that this is a great time to put more money into the market?  Is anybody going to listen to that advice when the largest global investing organizations are trying to unload those same assets at any price they can get?

The bottom line here is that professional investors are finally getting a handle on why well-diversified portfolios didn’t protect against the 2008 downturn.  But the fact remains that the people who can control their panic seem to be the only ones who will be protected the next time there’s a panic run for the exits.  Until we invent a cure for the human tendency to flee with the herd, investment portfolios are likely to go down the next time we experience a serious market downturn.  Let’s hope we’ll have to wait 60-80 years.

If you would like to discuss your current portfolio/asset allocation or any other financial planning matters, please don’t hesitate to contact us or visit our website at http://www.ydfs.com. We are a fee-only fiduciary financial planning firm that always puts your interests first.  If you are not a client yet, an initial consultation is complimentary and there is never any pressure or hidden sales pitch.

Posted in Fee-only, Financial Planning, investing, markets, retirement planning. Tags: , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

Cheap Oil Gets Cheaper

November 23, 2014 — Sam H. Fawaz

Dear Clients, Prospects & Friends:

The economic news that everybody is talking about lately is the sudden unexpected drop in oil prices.  One type of oil, West Texas Intermediate crude, has fallen from over $140 a barrel in the summer of 2008, and $115 a barrel as recently as June, down to $91, and there is no sign that the decline will stop there.

The price drop seems to be the result of a perfect storm of factors, both on the supply and demand side.  On the supply side, U.S. production has risen to the point where only Saudi Arabia extracts more oil from its soil.  In the recent past, America’s additional production was offset by sharp declines in production caused by the civil war in Libya, plus production declines in Iraq, Nigeria and the Sudan.  Those countries are now back in business, adding the production equivalent of 3 million barrels a day, a significant fraction of the 75 million barrels a day of global production.

On the demand side, meanwhile, China’s growth has fallen by half, European economies are weakening, and people everywhere are driving more fuel-efficient cars and living in more energy-efficient homes.

As always, a major shift in global economics is producing some winners and losers.  American consumers are among the most prominent winners, since they consume more oil and gas per capita than the citizens of any other country.  The stiff drop in oil prices this year has resulted in U.S. gasoline prices falling 26¢ to an average of $2.88 per gallon, down from $3.14 a month ago. That’s equivalent to a $40-billion tax cut that will benefit various the transportation sector, energy-dependent manufacturers and, of course, the handful of Americans who drive automobiles.

Lower energy prices are also a boon for countries that import a significant amount of crude, including India, which brings in roughly 85% of its oil, and Japan, which is importing oil again now that its nuclear reactor industry is on hiatus.

Losers?  You can expect the major oil companies to report lower profits in the months ahead, and the Russian economy which is heavily dependent on energy exports and already feeling the impact of an impending recession, is being crushed.  Surprisingly, some believe the biggest loser is Iran, whose social program spending and high costs of extraction imply a break-even well above today’s prices, estimated as high as $130 a barrel.

As mentioned earlier, oil prices could—and probably will—drop further.  But don’t believe the predictions that have popped up in the newspapers and on the financial TV stations of a new era of oil abundance.  Oil prices almost certainly won’t fall to pre-2007 prices, which can be seen on the accompanying chart.

Why?  According to the International Energy Agency, the capital cost of producing a unit of energy—that is, the cost of finding oil and gas, drilling for it (and hiring the people who will do these things, who are some of the best-paid workers in the world), moving it from the well to the refinery and refining it have doubled since 2000, and the rise in these costs increases yearly.  If oil prices drop much further, shale oil producers in North Dakota and Texas will find it unprofitable to keep drilling.

Another floor under prices is the OPEC cartel, which together supplies about 40 percent of the world’s oil.  A Bloomberg report noted that OPEC nations—particularly Saudi Arabia—have been surprisingly relaxed about the supply/demand shifts.  The cartel nations pumped 30.97 million barrels a day in October, exceeding their collective output target of 30 million barrels for a fifth straight month.  However, if oil prices were to dip closer to $80 a barrel, the cartel could well turn down the spigot and change the equation back in favor of higher prices. An OPEC meeting scheduled on Thanksgiving Day should have market moving implications for oil prices.

What should you do about all this?  Enjoy it!  When was the last time you saw prices fall dramatically on an item that you use every day, and that you could hardly function without?  Chances are you’ve been whacked by higher gas prices a few times in your life; this is your chance to enjoy a different dynamic—while it lasts.

Oh…  And don’t spend a lot of time worrying about the big oil companies.  Somehow they’ll manage to muddle through and stay profitable long enough to reap big gains the next time prices jump in the opposite direction.

If you would like to discuss any financial planning matters, please don’t hesitate to contact us or visit our website at http://www.ydfs.com. We are a fee-only fiduciary financial planning firm that always puts your interests first.

Sources:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/increased-spending-required-to-meet-future-demand/article18953856/
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Gas-Prices/Why-Despite-the-Boom-in-Oil-Production-are-Gasoline-Prices-Still-High.html
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Oil-Prices/Why-Oil-Prices-Are-About-To-Settle.html
http://www.vox.com/2014/10/7/6934819/oil-prices-falling-russia-OPEC-shale-boom-gasoline-prices

Posted in energy stocks, Financial Planning, investing, markets, retirement planning. Tags: , , , , , , . Leave a Comment »
« Older posts