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 »

The Pandemic That Isn’t

October 29, 2014 — Sam H. Fawaz

Omigosh!  There are cases of Ebola in the United States!  Someone with Ebola has flown on a domestic airplane!  Schools are closing in Texas!  Let’s show photos of healthcare workers in Hazmat suits who look like they’re dressed for the Moon, and report on anyone who might have been exposed, whether or not they’ve come down with the virus!

If you want to sell newspapers or catch eyeballs on cable news, nothing works like fear, and the Ebola virus has proven to be a great way to play games with our collective startle reflex.  Get ready for more breathless coverage, like the time when it made headlines when somebody sneezed on an aircraft.

There’s only one thing wrong about this: Ebola is not likely to become a health crisis, much less a global pandemic.  In other words: it’s okay to calm down.

To date, four people in the U.S. and one Spanish nurse have contracted the deadly disease since its outbreak in Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia, three West-African nations which which have, so far, experienced 1,000, 2,000 and 3,500 cases respectively.  Ebola has spread as far as it has in those countries for a variety of reasons not present in the U.S. and Europe: dysfunctional health systems, people living in close proximity in slums with hygiene that would appall most Americans, a lack of trust in authorities, and years of armed civil strife.  Remember, these are countries where there is a one in ten chance of catching cholera, and a higher incidence of malaria.

The thing to remember is, Ebola is not an air-borne disease.  You don’t catch it by sitting next to somebody on the plane, which is why no cases were reported as a result of that now-famous flight to Atlanta–or, for that matter, on that flight taken by the first patient who eventually succumbed to the disease in Dallas.  You catch Ebola through close contact with the bodily fluids of someone who is in the advanced stages of the disease, when the patient is vomiting and plagued by diarrhea.  That’s why the only transmissions in the U.S. so far have been healthcare workers in close contact with the patients.

Other countries, with far less medical resources, have already faced Ebola and kept it from spreading to the general population.  Senegal reported a single Ebola patient, who apparently never transmitted the disease to anyone thanks to local healthcare officials who immediately identified 74 people who had close contact with the patient.  These people were monitored twice daily, and when five developed influenza-like symptoms, they were tested repeatedly.  None had contracted the virus, but if they had, their isolation and monitoring meant that others would not have been infected.

There was a similar story in Nigeria, where an airline passenger collapsed on the tarmac, and the two co-workers who helped him into a cab to the hospital also contracted the virus.  Nigerian authorities identified everyone who had come in contact with the sick people.  In all, roughly 900 individuals were exposed, and they were identified and monitored.  Eighteen of them contracted Ebola, and the plague ended there–in a country whose healthcare system is far from perfect, where one in five deaths is due to malaria, one of only three countries in the world where polio is still endemic.

The lesson here is that, unless you work in a hospital and have had close personal contact with an Ebola patient, there is virtually a zero chance you will contract the disease.  It is even more unlikely that Ebola will grow into a national or global pandemic.  It is an undeniable tragedy in West Africa, which could have been prevented if pharmaceutical companies had been following up on promising treatments in their laboratories.  The U.S. Ebola scare has belatedly changed their priorities, but chances are the vaccine and the cure will actually be needed elsewhere.

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

Using Options To Enhance Portfolio Returns

February 8, 2014 — Sam H. Fawaz

When people think or hear about using options in their investment portfolios, they tend to think of them as risky instruments that lose their entire value, or worse, cause them to lose multiples of their value. But when used correctly, options can be a powerful tool to help enhance portfolio income, reduce overall portfolio risk, and make risk-defined bets on a stock, sector or fund.

What’s an Option

An option is a financial instrument, tied to or based on an individual stock or exchange traded fund, which gives the purchaser the right, but not the obligation, to buy or sell an underlying stock or fund. Options are unique in that they have a defined price to buy or sell the shares and a limited time to do so.  If you don’t “exercise” your right to buy or sell the shares within the time limit, whatever you pay for the option expires and is lost.

Options are sold as “contracts” for 100 shares each.  Remember, with options, you’re buying the right to buy or sell shares, not the shares themselves

There are two basic kinds of options: calls and puts. Let’s talk about each.

Calls and Puts

Think of calls as options to buy a stock or fund at a certain price. I liken a call to an option to buy a home at a certain price for a defined amount of time.

Let’s say that you’re interested in buying a home for $250,000 but aren’t sure that you can get the financing or whether the house is really worth the asking price. So you might offer the seller a sum of money to hold and sell you the house for $250,000 within 90 days. You might pay him a $2,500 “premium” for that option while you investigate financing or determine the true value of the home. During that time, the seller can’t offer to sell the home to anyone else.

If you can’t secure the financing, or you find out that the house is worth far less than $250,000, then you walk away having spent $2,500 for that right (but not the obligation) for 90 days to buy the home. If the true value of the home turns out to be $200,000, you just saved yourself $50,000 less the cost of the option (or $47,500).  If the value of the home instead turns out to be $300,000, then the seller is still obligated to sell you the house for $250,000. In that case, you would exercise your option and you just made an unrealized profit of $47,500 ($300,000 less $250,000 less the cost of the option or $2,500).

Think of puts as an option to sell a stock or fund at a certain price. In many ways, a put is akin to an insurance policy.

Let’s say that house that you just bought for $250,000 is insured for $250,000 and then burns down for a total loss. In that event, the insurance company would pay you for your loss as you “put” the (burned down) house to them. But in order to do that, you had to pay the insurance company an annual insurance premium of say $2,000. If nothing happens to the home, that premium paid is lost forever.

A Stock Example

Let’s turn the discussion to call options on stocks.

Say that you own 100 shares of Apple common stock currently trading for $500, which you bought for $400 per share and you want to generate additional income on those shares (besides the corporate dividend). To do so, you can sell a call option giving someone the right to “call away” your shares for a per share price of $550 within 45 days. For that sale, someone might pay you $1,000 (you don’t ever know who that someone is, but there’s always a willing buyer at the option exchanges for the right price). Note that there are many prices (called strike prices) that you can choose from to decide where you want to part with your Apple shares.

In this example, if Apple shares move down or never exceed $550 per share by the time the option expires, the buyer of that option will walk away without buying the shares and will be out $1,000, but you’ll be $1,000 richer. In that case, you keep your Apple shares and then repeat the process at a new appropriate sales price. Remember, if the buyer of the option can buy shares on the open market for less than $550, she has no reason to exercise that option.

If, on the other hand, Apple shares are at $575 by expiration, you’ll have to part with your shares for a price of $550 (plus the $1,000 that you pocketed for selling the option). The buyer of the option the exercises her option and then owns the shares and any appreciation over $550. You just made $150 per share profit plus the $1,000 option premium. You can then choose to buy new shares of Apple and repeat the process at a higher option price.  Note that the option buyer can call away the shares any time before they expire, but won’t do so unless the price of the shares is higher than $550.

Of course, with any option, you’re free to be the buyer of the calls to speculate on the price of any stock or fund. In the Apple example above, you could have been the buyer of the call option instead of being the seller and thereby speculate on the price of Apple appreciating.

So what about put options on a stock?

Lets continue the Apple example above. At $500 market value per share, you currently have $100 of unrealized profit per share. Now suppose you’ve become worried about a short-term decline in the overall market or in the price of Apple shares, but you don’t want to sell them yet.  Just in case, you might want a short-term insurance policy in the event that Apple shares tumble. In this case, you might buy a $500 put option for $1,000 to give you the right to “put” those shares to someone else for no less than $500 each.

So if Apple shares drop to $450, you’ll still get $500 for your shares when you exercise your put and the seller of the put will be out $4,000 ($500 minus $450 times 100 shares less $1,000 premium received). However, if the shares of Apple are trading for more than $500 by the expiration of the put option, then the put expires worthless and you’re out $1,000 and the seller pockets $1,000.

Safe Ways To Use Options

By now you may have realized that selling options is a nice way to make some extra income. When you consider that most options expire worthless, it is indeed better to be the “house” selling the options rather than the “bettor” buying the options.

The above examples are greatly simplified to help you with the understanding of options. We’ve left out all the mechanics and nuances of option trading to aid in understanding.

The reason that options get such a bad rap is because most people are buyers of options rather than sellers, and they usually buy far too many of them. Since each option contract is good for 100 shares, you shouldn’t buy or sell more contracts than you would buy or sell an equivalent number of shares of stock. Some people even sell calls on stocks that they don’t own (this is allowed), not realizing that stocks can sometimes go much higher than they can imagine. So if you sell an option “naked”, to a certain extent, you’re taking nearly unlimited risk.

In our client portfolios, we may generate income by selling calls against shares we own, so we only have the risk of the stock being called away. We may also hedge our portfolios with options to take advantage of short-term volatility. We may do so by trading puts, but do so in a risk defined way to minimize our premium outlay or maximize our premium generation. In other words, we don’t take unnecessary unlimited risk bets with options and use them only in the safest ways possible.

Hopefully this post helps you to better understand how we (and you could) use options in your own investment portfolios. Of course, if you want to dabble in options, I highly recommend that you get yourself a good book on options and study it carefully before trying them out. Option investing is where a little bit of knowledge is helpful, but can also be dangerous if you’re not sure what you’re doing.

If you’d like to know more about what we do to enhance and hedge investment portfolios, please don’t hesitate to contact us or just ask any questions.

Posted in investing, markets, retirement. Tags: , , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

Fee-Only Financial Advisers Who Aren’t

September 21, 2013 — Sam H. Fawaz

Today’s (Saturday September 21, 2013) Wall Street Journal contains an article entitled ” ‘Fee-Only’ Financial Advisers Who Don’t Charge Fees Alone” written by award-winning writer Jason Zweig, better known as “The Intelligent Investor.” Jason acts as beacon to guide investors towards the better practices of saving and investing and warns them of the tricks and traps.

In this article, Jason points out that “You might think a “fee-only” financial adviser will never charge you commissions or other sales charges that could induce him to favor selling you something that is better for him than for you. Think again.”

Through his research, he found that many advisors who hold themselves out as “fee-only” indeed earn commissions, kickbacks, trails or other hidden compensation even though they might not sell you a product that generates one. He found that numerous advisors (661) that were Certified Financial Planners (TM) and worked for large Wall Street brokerage firms such as Morgan Stanley, UBS, RBC, Wells Fargo, J.P. Morgan Chase, Bank of America Merrill Lynch, Raymond James and Ameriprise Financial also listed themselves as fee-only advisors on the CFP (r) website. By definition, based on the nature of the firms that they work for, they cannot designate themselves as fee-only advisors or planners.

Many people also confuse fee-only with fee-based. They are definitely not the same. Fee-based means that the advisor can earn both fees for services as well as other commissions or kickbacks for selling investment, insurance or other financial products.

NAPFA, the National Association of Personal Financial Advisors (the de facto fee-only organization of planners and advisors found at napfa.org), the Financial Planning Association and the Certified Financial Planner board of standards are currently working on more clearly defining the “fee-only” standard and urging members to update their profiles and re-assert that they meet the more clearly-defined standard. I applaud this effort.

I wish to reassure our clients, prospects and friends that our firm, YDream Financial Services, takes a very serious and crystal clear stance on meeting the fee-only definition. Fee-only planners, like us, are compensated solely by fees paid by our clients and we do not accept commissions or compensation of any kind from any source. We also don’t earn any money or consideration from trails, referrals or markups. We have zero incentive to recommend any financial products and don’t accept anything (except perhaps trinkets from wholesalers or fund companies worth $5 or less handed out at conferences) that influences our recommendations. Our custodian, Charles Schwab does not reimburse or compensate us for any trade commissions or for the use of any particular financial products that they offer.

As a fiduciary, we take our responsibility to put your interests first and we endeavor do that in every recommendation or transaction that we initiate on your behalf. Finally, any conflicts of interest that our compensation approach might present are clearly discussed and disclosed with our clients and prospects prior to implementing the recommendation or moving forward with the engagement.

You can find the Wall Street Journal Article here http://goo.gl/23Oy3B. It’s worth the short read. If the link requires a log in or subscription to the Wall Street Journal Online, I suggest typing the title of the article above into your favorite search engine then click on the search hit that it finds.

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

Your Returns Versus the Market

September 2, 2013 — Sam H. Fawaz

One of the most misleading statistics in the financial world is the return data we are routinely given by the financial media, telling us how much investors made in the markets and in individual stocks or mutual funds over some time period.  In fact, your returns are almost guaranteed to be different from whatever the markets and the funds you’ve invested in have gotten.

How is this possible?  Start with cash flows.  We are told that the S&P 500 has delivered a compounded return of about 7.8% from 1992 through 2011, which sounds pretty positive until you realize that this return would only be available to somebody who invested all his or her money at the beginning of 1992 and didn’t move that money around at all for the next twenty years.  If you invested systematically, the same amount every month, as most of us do, then you would have earned a 3.2% compounded return.  Why?  A lot of your money would have been exposed to the 2008 downturn, and not much of it would have enjoyed the dramatic run-up in stocks from 1992 to 2000.

In addition, there is the difference–only now getting attention from analysts–between investor returns and investment returns.  Human nature drives investors to sell their stocks and move to the sidelines after their portfolios have been hammered–which is often the worst possible time to sell.  And it drives people to start increasing their equity allocations toward the peak of bull markets when they perceive that everybody else is getting rich.  That means less of their money tends to be exposed to stocks when the market turns from bearish to bullish, and more is exposed when markets switch from bullish to bearish.

Understand also that owning a diversified portfolio means that only a portion of your investments are exposed to stocks. Assets such as cash, bonds, real estate, commodities and other non-stock investments all have returns that are inherently different than stocks, making overall portfolio return comparisons an “apples to oranges” one.

This would be bad enough, but people also switch their mutual fund and stock holdings.  When a great fund hits a rough patch, there’s a tendency to sell that dog and buy a fund that whose recent returns have been scorching hot.  Many times the underperforming fund will reverse course, while the hot fund will cool off.  The Morningstar organization now calculates, for every fund it follows, the difference between the returns of the mutual fund and the average returns of the investors in fund, and the differences can be astonishing.  Overall, according to Morningstar statistics and an annual report compiled by the Dalbar organization, investor returns have historically been about half of what the markets and funds are reporting.

And then there’s the tax bite.  Some mutual funds invest more tax-efficiently than others, and generate less ordinary income.  Beyond that, if a fund is sitting on significant losses when you invest, you get to ride out its gains without having the tax impact distributed to your 1040.  If the fund is sitting on large gains when you buy in, you could find yourself paying taxes on gains even if the fund loses money.

Sources:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/financialfinesse/2012/06/20/why-your-investment-returns-could-be-lower-than-you-think/

http://www.thesunsfinancialdiary.com/investing/understanding-ms-total-return-and-investor-return/

http://corporate.morningstar.com/cf/documents/MethodologyDocuments/FactSheets/InvestorReturns.pdf

My thanks to Inside Information publisher Bob Veres for his contribution to this post.

Posted in General, investing, markets, retirement. Tags: , , , , . 1 Comment »

The Rollercoaster Effect

June 23, 2013 — Sam H. Fawaz

There are two kinds of investor in this world.  One type pays close attention to the daily (and sometimes hourly) flood of information, looking for a reason (any reason) to jump in or out of the markets.  The other kind of investor is in for the long haul, and recognizes that the markets are going to experience dips and turns.  If these people are particularly wise, they know that the dips and turns are the best friend of the steady, long-term investor, because as you put money into the markets, as you re-balance your portfolio, you gain a little extra return from the occasional opportunities to buy at bargain prices.

Last week, the investment markets made an unusually sharp turn on the roller coaster, and showed us once again the sometimes-comical fallacy of quick trading.  See if you can follow the logic of the events that led to last week’s selloff.  Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke and the Federal Open Market Committee issued a statement saying that the U.S. economy is improving faster than the Fed’s economists expected.  Therefore (the statement went on to say) if there was continued improvement, the Fed would scale back its QE3 (quantitative easing) program of buying Treasury and mortgage-backed securities on the open market, and ease back on stimulating the economy and keeping interest rates low.

Everybody knows that the Fed will eventually have to phase out its QE3 market interventions, and that this would be based on the strength of the economy, so this announcement should not have stunned the investing public.  Nothing in the statement suggested that the Fed had any immediate plans to stop buying altogether; only ease it back as it became less necessary.  The statement said that this hypothetical easing might possibly take place as early as this Fall, and only if the unemployment rate falls faster than expected.  At the same time, the Fed’s economists issued an economic forecast that was more optimistic than the previous one.

The result?  There was panic in the streets–or, at least, on Wall Street, where this bullish economic report seems to have caused the S&P 500 to lose 1.4% of its valueon Wednesday and another 2.5% on Thursday.

In addition–and here’s where it gets a little weird–stocks also fell sharply in Shanghai and across Europe, and oil futures fell dramatically.  How, exactly, are these investments impacted by QE3?

The only explanation for last week’s panic selloff is that thousands of media junkie investors must have listened to “we plan to ease back on QE3 when we believe the economy is back on its feet again,” and heard: “the Fed is about to end its QE3 stimulus!”

It’s possible that the investors who sold everything they owned on Wednesday  throughFriday will pile back in this week, but it’s just as likely that the panic will feed on itself for a while until sanity is restored.  If stocks were valued daily based on pure logic, on the real underlying value of the enterprises they represent, then the trajectory of the markets would be a long smooth upward slope for decades, as businesses, in aggregate, expanded, moved into new markets, and slowly, over time, boosted sales and profits.  The roller-coaster effect that we actually experience is created by the emotions of the market participants, who value their stocks at one price on Wednesday, and very different prices on Thursday and Friday.

The long-term investor has to ask: did any individual company in my investment portfolio become suddenly less valuable in two days?  Did ALL of their enterprise values in aggregate become less valuable within 48 hours–and at the same time, did Chinese and European stocks and oil also suddenly become less valuable?  Phrased this way, the only possible answer is: no.  And if that’s your answer, then you have to assume that eventually, people will eventually be willing to pay the real underlying value of the stocks in the market, and the last couple of days will be just one more exciting example of meaningless white noise.

With all that said, it’s prudent to be cautious about going “all in” on this pullback in the market and to perhaps take some hard-earned partial profits on positions you’ve been holding. In our clients’ portfolios, we’ve upped our hedges and taken partial profits on short-term positions, but are still holding the majority of our equities and bonds.

With the action in the markets last week, we officially have the beginnings of a downtrend, but that can be very short-lived in this QE environment, so we remain on our toes. Be sure to consult with your advisor if you’re uncomfortable with your holdings or have trouble sleeping at night because of your positions. Nothing in this message should be construed as investment advice or suggestions to buy or sell any security.

If you have any questions or comments, please don’t hesitate to contact us or post them here. We are a fee-only fiduciary financial planning and investment advisory firm that always puts your interests first.

Have a great week!

Sam

Sam H. Fawaz CFP™, CPA
Registered Investment Adivsor Representative
NAPFA Registered Fee-only Advisor
Financial Planning Asssociation Member
(734) 447-5305
(615) 395-2010
http://www.ydfs.com

TheMoneyGeek thanks Bob Veres, publisher of Inside Information for his help with writing this guest post.

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

Bond Market Outlook: Points to Ponder

June 6, 2012 — Sam H. Fawaz

During the past decade, many long-term fundamentals of investing have been turned upside down and one example is the performance of U.S. stocks compared with bonds. Over longer time periods, such as 20 or 30 years, stocks exhibited higher average annual returns along with greater volatility.1 Bonds, in contrast, presented lower long-term returns along with fewer ups and downs.

But the 10-year period ending December 31, 2011, has shown the opposite, with the average annual return of investment-grade bonds exceeding stocks by a margin of 5.8% compared with 2.9%.1 No one knows for sure whether the recent outperformance of bonds will continue, but events currently present in the U.S. economy are causing observers to question the outlook in the years ahead.

Interest Rates The Federal Reserve has maintained the federal funds rate between 0.0% and 0.25% with the goal of stimulating the economy. Given how low short-term interest rates are, it is likely that they will turn upward at some point, which would present challenges for bondholders. Historically, higher interest rates have caused the prices of existing bonds to fall as investors have pursued newly issued bonds paying higher rates. This scenario presents the potential for losses for existing bondholders.

Inflation During 2011, inflation averaged 3.2%, close to the historical average of 2.9%.2 But if inflation were to increase even higher, an investor would lose money on a bond with a yield lower than the rate of inflation. Some observers believe that if the U.S. economy begins generating stronger growth, inflation could once again spike upward.

Federal Spending Sizeable federal deficits are almost old news as the government looks for ways to stimulate the country’s economic engines. While economic growth is a laudable objective, outsized federal spending may impact the financial markets. If the federal government is forced to pay higher interest rates to entice investors to fund the debt, this action could lead to higher interest rates on other types of bonds as well in response to investor demand.

Bonds can help investors balance a portfolio weighted to stock funds or other assets. When making decisions about investments, it is important to weigh both the benefits and the risks associated with bonds and any other assets that you own.

Source/Disclaimer:

1Sources: Standard & Poor’s; Barclays Capital. Stocks are represented by the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index, bonds by the Barclays Aggregate Bond Index, volatility by standard deviation. Results are for the 30-year period ending December 31, 2011. You cannot invest directly in an index. Past performance does not guarantee future results. Investing in stocks involves risks, including loss of principal. Bonds are subject to market and interest rate risk if sold prior to maturity. Bond values will decline as interest rates rise and are subject to availability and change in price.

2Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Inflation is represented by the Consumer Price Index. Historical average is for the period between 1926 and 2011.

June 2012 — This column is provided through the Financial Planning Association, the membership organization for the financial planning community, and is brought to you by YDream Financial Services,a local member of FPA.

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

What’s Going on With The Markets? 3rd Quarter 2011

October 1, 2011 — Sam H. Fawaz

The headline on today’s Wall Street Journal says it all: “Stocks Log Worst Quarter Since ’09”, referring of course to the first quarter of 2009 before the start of the (current?) bull market run. Even quarter-end “window dressing”, where fund managers buy up the best performing stocks to make their holdings look good to shareholders and boost their chances of quarterly performance bonuses didn’t help at all. September 30th ended the day, week, month and quarter-end at an ominous level.
 
The shocks to the markets continue to come from the Eurozone debt crisis, worries of another recession starting, the Chinese economy slowing, and now, corporate earnings results for the third quarter coming in below estimates. Forward guidance, that is, how companies estimate their upcoming earnings, are expected to be pulled down a bit. With economic data continuing to soften or come in worse than expected, evidence is mounting that the economy continues to slow down, but not contract. Contraction for two straight quarters is the textbook definition of the start of a recession.
 
My most reliable source for forecasting a recession comes from the Economic Cycle Research Institute (ECRI). In the past, they have been spot on in identifying the conditions that precede the onset of a recession.  This week, although not confirming the start of a recession, the ECRI did confirm that evidence of a recession is spreading like wildfire and one would be almost impossible to avoid given current conditions.  Consumer confidence is at or near an all-time low due partly because of the whole debt ceiling debacle and political gridlock. Without confidence, and without jobs, people are not spending to help the recovery. Without spending, there’s no demand. Without demand, there’s no production and therefore no hiring. And you can complete that circle yourself.
 
As I’ve mentioned before, if we are headed for a recession, then stock prices will likely have to fall further before they are fairly priced. This is because earnings fall during a recession, and institutions only buy stocks when they’re fairly priced according to forward earnings. If we’re not headed for a recession, then stock prices are cheap and out to be bought hand over fist right here, right now. 
 
What we’ve witnessed in the stock markets over the past 8-9 weeks is extreme volatility brought on by the battle between those in the recession camp and those not in the recession camp (along with Eurozone worries).  Since the August 9th low in the markets, the S&P 500 has traded in a 100 point range and has basically gone nowhere.  This bouncing around will not continue forever (but can continue for months), and will give way to a big move up or down in the near future. The action during the past week tends to point to a downward move, but every downward move in this range looked like it was going to break down until buyers stepped in.
 
What I Believe and What We’re DoingAs evidence that points to a recession mounts, I’m becoming less convinced that we can avoid a recession in the next 3-6 months. This is a change from my previous stance of no impending recession in previous months. It’s become increasingly clear that the Federal Reserve is less able to influence what happens in the economy, and in my opinion, the less they do the better.
 
As the odds of a recession have been increasing, and world economies also slow, I have been slowly reducing client exposure to equities over the past couple of months. Our exposure to small cap stocks is now very small, and I began to reduce exposure to mid-cap stocks by up to 1/3 as of last week.
 
On Friday of this week, I increased our exposure to hedges via leveraged inverse exchange traded funds because I believe that we will test the August 9th low on the S&P 500 index of 1101 (current level of support) and may even break below it. I also believe that even if the market did decline by another 10% (should we break support) we still have a year-end rally in the cards.  Even if I’m wrong about reducing equity exposure and increasing our hedges, and the markets reverse and fly to the upside (not likely), prudent risk management based on the facts and circumstances warrant caution. It never hurts to reduce equity exposure when uncertainty and volatility rule the markets.
 
September 2011 was the 6th down month in a row in the stock markets, and bear markets typically last 6-18 months. If this is merely a correction and not a bear market, then 6 months is a good point in time to expect a bounce. My expectations, especially since this is the 3rd year of an election cycle, that somewhere along the lines of mid to late October, we begin to see the year-end bounce. 
 
As always, I offer my caveat: my crystal ball is in the shop and no one, including me, can forecast what the markets will do. I can only provide my best guess, and that’s what this is, a guess, based on all the information available to me and historical precedent, of what the markets may do. I could be totally wrong on both direction and timing, so no one should make any investment decisions based on my prognostications or forecast. Forewarned is forearmed.
 
I’m happy to answer any questions or comments you may have. If you already have a fee-only financial advisor (the only kind I recommend), then great. If you’re looking for an unbiased, fee-only financial advisor, don’t hesitate to contact us. Your first consultation is complimentary and comes with no pressure to act or sales tactics.  As fee-only fiduciary advisors, we act in your best interest and collect no commissions, trails or any hidden compensation.

Posted in investing, markets, retirement. Tags: , , . Leave a Comment »

Stock Market and Economic Update August 21, 2011

August 21, 2011 — Sam H. Fawaz

The past week hasn’t been particularly kind in the stock markets as we saw little follow-through on the previous week’s rally. My upside target of 1230-1260 in the S&P 500 index was not even approached before selling resumed at around 1208.
 
A few economic reports from last week have me a bit more concerned about the possibility of a recession within the next twelve months.  Although the economic leading indicators that I’ve come to rely on from the Economic Cycle Research Institute turned up again this past week, the only components to rise were financial ones, namely the money supply (with the stock market selling being a contributing factor) and the steep yield curve (ultralow interest rates on short duration debt versus higher rates on longer duration debt made possible by the Federal Reserve’s low interest rate policy). Without these two components, the index would have been down 0.5%, which is down three of the last four months.  Weekly unemployment claims came in at 408,000 whereas they were starting to trend below 400,000 in the last few weeks.
 
So the volatility in the market right now is at least partially attributable to concerns about whether a recession is on the horizon or not. If one is not, then the market is undervalued. If one is, then the market is overvalued. So far, the weight of evidence of a recession is still inconclusive, but it appears that institutional buyers are starting to “discount” that possibility as they demonstrate through selling in the markets.  The research I read is split about 50/50 about whether a recession is coming, with convincing cases made on both sides.  My feeling is that we have a bit further to go on the downside if economic factors or confidence measures don’t start pointing up real soon.
 
Accordingly, I am becoming increasingly concerned about the behavior of the markets and the economic numbers coming out lately since they haven’t been particularly encouraging. Accordingly, this past week I increased my clients’ hedges and continued to slightly reduce exposure to equities just to be on the safe side. 
 
This week will be critical since the Federal Reserve Chairman (Ben Bernanke) will be speaking on Friday and will reveal any further measures they may take to ease recession concerns and restore confidence to the markets.  More information about how the Eurozone will handle its debt crisis should help calm the markets.  But based on the market action on Thursday and Friday, it seems that many institutional and retail investors are not waiting to hear what the Chairman has to say or what solution the Eurozone might propose to avoid a deepening debt crisis.  They have therefore been selling and may continue doing so into this week.
 
I will continue to monitor the markets day to day and make further adjustments to portfolios and increase hedges as conditions warrant. Since the market is heavily oversold, we should expect some level of a bounce this week, if only for folks to prepare for any surprise announcement the Federal Reserve Chairman might offer to help propel markets higher.

Bottom line, it’s too early to reach conclusions about whether or not the April high was an important top in the market. If it was, it was unlike any market top of the past 50 years, with both the LEI and market breadth still hitting new highs after the top. When panic selling spreads across the board – good quality companies go down along with the overvalued speculative stocks.  I can say that barring some type of financial Armageddon, I believe the downside valuation risk in this market is far less than in 2007-08. 

My major equity allocation decision is to give this market more time before making any major adjustments. What is needed –more than anything else– is stability and confidence. Only time and stability can calm the emotional extremes and fears, which still come out of the woodwork on a daily basis. But as I’ve said, if the retest (of the S&P 500 index lows of 1100) is able to hold above the lows of last week, then it could provide a strong market base if evidence of a recession does not increase in coming weeks.

Again, please do not take this message as advice to buy or sell any securities; please consult with your investment advisor (or us!) This message is not intended to forecast what will happen in the market since no one (including me) can do that. My objective is to share what I’ve been hearing, reading and researching, the end result of which is one of cautious optimism.
 
Please don’t hesitate to contact me if you need any help with your personal financial situation or investments.  I welcome your feedback and questions always.

Posted in investing, markets, retirement. Tags: , , , , . Leave a Comment »
« Older posts
Newer posts »