The Future of Social Security

Posted On May 14, 2017 By Scott Stratton, CFP(R), CFA In Retirement Planning /

It seems like the Internet Age has helped create a culture of instant gratification, short attention spans, and sound bites. There is less interest and patience for detailed discussions, long-form journalism, or acknowledging the complex trade-offs of decisions. We have moved into a post-factual world where the truth gets less airplay than spin. Politically, everything is black and white, right or wrong.

Frequently, I see people posting political comments or memes on Facebook about Social Security. These posts are meant to make the other party look like villains, but are often factually incorrect, incomplete, and short-sighted. I avoid getting sucked into these unproductive conversations, but many people could use a better understanding of the numbers and reality of our situation.

We should be having a real, adult conversation about Social Security. It is the future of not only retirement planning, but of our country’s prosperity and debt. I hope this primer below will make the case for why we need to reform Social Security and the challenges we face.

First, it is a myth that Social Security saves your contributions. Social Security is and always has been an entitlement program, like Welfare or Food Stamps. Current taxes are used to pay current benefits. The Social Security taxes you paid in 2015 were paid out to Social Security Beneficiaries in 2015. None of that money was saved for you.

Because of post-WWII demographics, there was for a very long time, a Social Security surplus. They took in more payroll taxes than they paid out in benefits. That annual surplus was invested in the Social Security Trust Fund, to pay a portion of future benefits. It was never the intent or expectation that the Trust Fund would cover all future expenses.

For decades, the Trust Fund saved this surplus. However, in the 1970’s politicians looked for a way to close the budget gap and decided to spend the Trust Fund and replace those assets with IOU’s in the form of Treasury Bonds.

Several years ago, the annual Social Security surplus disappeared and became negative. Today, there is a short-fall where current OASDI taxes are insufficient to cover benefits paid. The short-fall is presently being covered by the Trust Fund through cashing in their Treasury Bonds. This is where all the Facebookers get things wrong – Social Security does have an impact on the deficit. Benefits which are paid from the Trust Fund are now part of our national debt, as new bonds are issued to replace those cashed by the Trust Fund.

Once the Trust Fund reaches zero, the Social Security Administration will be able to cover only 77% of their promised benefits. Every year, the Social Security trustees project when this will occur, presently thought to be 2035. This is the date that Social Security will be insolvent, or “bankrupt”.

People say, But I paid into Social Security, I am OWED those benefits! Unfortunately, the Social Security System is broken and the numbers are simply not going to work. When the program began, there were 16 workers for every retiree. Today, there are 3 workers for every retiree, and that ratio is expected to continue to fall to 2 to 1, before the mid-century.

There are a couple of reasons why this has happened. Demographically, the Baby Boomer generation is enormous and there are thousands of people who are starting benefits every day for the next two decades. When Social Security began, the life expectancy at birth was only 65. Today, if you are already 65, the typical beneficiary will probably live another two decades. The retirement period being funded by Social Security has swelled from a couple of years to 20, 30, or more years because of our increasing longevity.

What originally worked in 1935 isn’t possible with today’s population. Every year, the Trustees tell Congress exactly how to fix Social Security. There are only two options: increase taxes or decrease benefits. There is no magic unicorn of preserving promised benefits and not raising taxes. That’s not how Math works. So when a politician promises that they will not lower benefits, they are either in favor of higher taxes or they are just blowing smoke. If they ignore the issue for long enough, it will become their successor’s problem.

Seniors vote and turn out better than any other age group. Politicians and candidates know this. The easiest attack in politics is to say that your opponent wants to “take away your Social Security check”. Up to this point, that war cry has silenced every politician who has proposed Social Security reform, including the bi-partisan Simpson-Bowles commission which came up with comprehensive solutions.

The present approach from politicians is the worst for America: kick the can down the road and let someone else fix it. Parties are too concerned with maintaining their seats over the next two years (or taking them back), to be willing to think longer-term than the next election cycle. The longer we wait to address the short-fall, the more drastic steps will be required.

Simpson-Bowles proposed increasing the Full Retirement Age from 67 to 69 over several decades. This would have had zero impact on current retirees and gave 20 years notice to future retirees. But even this small change brought the full opposition of the AARP, and ultimately none of the commission’s proposals were ever enacted.

Presently, workers and employers pay OASDI taxes on the first $127,200 of earnings (2017). Raising the income ceiling on Social Security taxes will not be sufficient to fully fund benefits, even if we were to eliminate it entirely. There will probably need to be some reduction in benefits if we are to avoid increasing taxes significantly on all workers. But that doesn’t mean that everyone will see their benefits plummet. Ways to reduce benefits include:

Increasing the Full Retirement Age gradually from 67 to 70
Changing how SS calculates cost of living adjustments (COLAs)
Means-testing benefits
Creating a cap on benefits, say to the first $75,000 in income
Adjusting mortality calculations for today’s increased longevity
Lowering the payout formulas and tying them to future increases in longevity

By the way, increasing immigration and the population of younger people would help retirement programs like Social Security. Look at a country like Japan, which has an even higher percentage of retirees than the US, to see the challenges of financially supporting a large segment of the population. The money that is spent on retirement programs, or to finance the debt of those programs, crowds out other government spending which might be better for economic development.

There is no quick fix or easy solution to save Social Security, but it’s time we expect more from our politicians. Fixing Social Security and Medicare will not be easy or painless, but we need to be thinking now about how we can preserve these programs and ensure their viability for younger workers and future generations. Become an informed voter and be on the lookout for when politicians are using issues as ammunition to lob at their opponents, rather than looking at solutions for America.

My Used Car Adventure, Part II

Posted On May 6, 2017 By Scott Stratton, CFP(R), CFA In Behavioral Finance /

Some people in Dallas pour more money into new cars than they do their investments and financial future. They get a new luxury car every three years, but tell me they cannot afford to put $5,000 into an IRA. I think their priorities are backwards! To sink our hard-earned cash into a depreciating asset will keep us poor and stressed, rather than allowing us to enjoy the peace of mind of financial independence.

Last night, a friend was asking me whether he should fix up his 10-year old Toyota (facing a $400 expense) or buy a new car. Previously, I have written in this blog about my real costs of buying a high-mile used car. Three years ago, I purchased a 2002 Toyota 4Runner with 179,000 miles for $4,500. Seems like an invitation to disaster and disappointment, right? Well, here’s how things turned out…

I sold the 4Runner last fall, after two years of ownership, with 197,000 miles on the odometer. During my ownership, it never broke down and always started on the first try. It was completely dependable and there were no unexpected repairs, only routine and preventative maintenance. I sold it for $4,150, my full asking price on a (free) Craigslist ad, to the first person who looked at it.

That means that over the two years, my total depreciation was $350. I cleaned the car meticulously before selling, and you truly can polish money into a car. If it looks great and you can show detailed maintenance history, you will do well.

While my depreciation was very low, I had maintenance expenses over the two years. The biggest expense was a set of four new tires, $744.84. (Those are some big tires, 265’s!) The rest of the work I performed myself and included: four oil changes, replacing the rusty radiator, hoses, and thermostat, changing the differential oil, steering fluid, and brake fluid, wipers, air filter, PCV valve, two indicator bulbs, and one headlamp. Sounds like a lot, but most of those are 5-minute jobs. My total spend on maintenance over two years was $574.33.

The average car on the road is over 11 years old, but many of us still hate older cars. It is definitely a headache when a car breaks down and leaves you stranded, but that can happen even in a new car. From a behavioral perspective, the inconsistency in our thinking is that we have such a strong aversion to paying for unexpected repairs but are so willing to accept the known and inevitable loss of depreciation.

Why is spending $1,000 on a repair so much more painful than losing $4,000 in depreciation over a year? Depreciation is the bigger expense. Almost every new car will lose 50% of its value in 5 years. By 10 years, you will have an 80 to 90 percent loss.

The reality is that today’s cars are more dependable than ever. When you trade in your 8 year old car with 100,000 miles, chances are that someone else is going to drive that vehicle for another 8 years and another 100,000 miles. But you will have paid 80% of the depreciation!

Now, I realize that a sample of one (my experience with one 4Runner) does not prove a statistical case that all used car purchases are going to be effortless and inexpensive. It is entirely possible that I was just lucky. The car could have blown up the day after I bought it and I’d have lost my $4,500 investment. Fortunately, it did not, but that is a gamble I can afford to take.

My advice remains that the least costly course of action is to keep your current vehicle for as long as possible so that you can spend years on the flat end of the depreciation curve. Maintenance costs should not be unexpected, even though the timing and amounts are always unknown. The key is to remember that your repair costs are still likely to be a fraction of the depreciation costs of a new car. When you have to get a new vehicle, consider a used car and let someone else pay the steep depreciation of the first 3, 5, or even 10 years of the car’s life.

I know rationally that keeping cars for 10+ years is the best option, but truthfully, I get bored with cars. If you are fine with the same vehicle for a decade, that is fantastic. You are undoubtedly being very smart to keep one vehicle for 10 years. But I’d rather get a different vehicle every couple of years, a habit which could get very, very expensive. Luckily for me, I don’t really care if a car is new or used, just that it is new to me.

When I sold the 4Runner, everything still worked and I could have kept on driving it. But I just wanted something different. I purchased a 2006 Mercedes E350 sedan with 123,000 miles for $5,300. Now I am not only flouting the conventional wisdom of avoiding older, high mileage cars, I am doubling down by going from a dependable Toyota with cheap parts, to a luxury car with very expensive German parts.

I’ve had the Merc for a few months and have already put on 5,000 miles, with zero issues. The engine seems quite strong and everything on the car feels very well made. Fingers crossed that it holds up! We’ve had a number of BMWs in the past and I always wanted a Mercedes. I’ve gotten a number of compliments on it, but I think people would be very surprised if they knew how little I paid for it! I expect that, unlike the Toyota, I will not do all the work myself and that my maintenance costs will be higher. I will continue to keep a spreadsheet and report back to you, my readers, and let you know how it turns out – good, bad, or ugly!

Social Security Planning: Marriage, Divorce, and Survivors

Posted On April 29, 2017 By Scott Stratton, CFP(R), CFA In Retirement Planning /

The Social Security Statement you receive is often incomplete if you are married, were married, or are a widow or widower. Your statement shows your own earnings history and a projection of your individual benefits, but never shows your eligible benefits as a spouse, ex-spouse, or survivor.

In general, when someone is eligible for more than one type of Social Security benefit, they will receive the larger benefit, not both. But how are you supposed to know if the spousal benefit is the larger option? Social Security is helpful with applying for benefits, but they don’t exactly go out of their way to let you know in advance about what benefits you might receive or when you should file for these benefits.

The rules for claiming spousal benefits, divorced spouse benefits, and survivor benefits are poorly understood by the public. And unfortunately, many financial advisors don’t understand these rules either, even though Social Security is the cornerstone of retirement planning for most Americans. Today we are giving you the basics of what you need to know. With this information, you may want to delay or accelerate benefits. The timing of when you take Social Security is a big decision, one which has a major impact on the total lifetime benefits you will receive.

1) Spousal Benefits. If you are married, you are eligible for a benefit based on your spouse’s earnings, once your spouse has filed to receive those benefits. If you are at Full Retirement Age (FRA) of 66 or 67, your spousal benefit is equal to 50% of your spouse’s Primary Insurance Amount (PIA). If you start benefits before your FRA, the benefit is reduced. You could start as early as age 62, which would provide a benefit of 32.5% of your spouse’s PIA. Calculate your benefit reduction here.

If your own benefit is already more than 50% of your spouse’s benefit, you would not receive an additional the spousal benefit. When you file for Social Security benefits, the administration will automatically calculate your eligibility for a spousal benefit and pay you whichever amount is higher. A quick check is to compare both spouse’s Social Security statements; if one of your benefits is more than double the other person’s benefit, you are a potential candidate for spousal benefits.

If your spouse is receiving benefits and you have a qualifying child under age 16 or who receives Social Security disability benefits, your spousal benefit is not reduced from the 50% level regardless of age.

Please note that spousal benefits are based on PIA and do not receive increases for Deferred Retirement Credits (DRCs), which occur after FRA until age 70. While the higher-earning spouse will receive DRCs for delaying his or her benefits past FRA, the spousal benefit does not increase. Furthermore, the spousal benefit does not increase after the spouse’s FRA; it is never more than one-half of the PIA. If you are going to receive a spousal benefit, do not wait past your age 66, doing so will not increase your benefit!

2) Divorced Spouse Benefits. If you were married for at least 10 years, you are eligible for a spousal benefit based on your ex-spouse’s earnings. You are eligible for this benefit if you are age 62 or older, unmarried, and your own benefit is less than the spousal benefit. A lot of divorced women, who may have spent years out of the workforce raising a family, are unaware of this benefit.

Unlike regular spousal benefits, your ex-spouse does not have to start receiving Social Security benefits for you to be eligible for a benefit as an ex-spouse, as long as you have been divorced for at least two years.The ex-spouse benefit has no impact on the former spouse or on their subsequent spouses. See Social Security: If You Are Divorced.

If you remarry, you are no longer eligible for a benefit from your first marriage, unless your second marriage also ends by divorce, death, or annulment.

A couple of hypothetical scenarios, below. Please note that the gender in these examples is irrelevant. It could be reversed. The same rules also apply for same-sex marriages now.

a) A man is married four times. The first marriage lasted 11 years, the second lasted 10 years, the third lasted 8 years, and his current (fourth) marriage started three years ago. The current spouse is eligible for a spousal benefit. The first two spouses are eligible for an ex-spouse benefit, but the third is not because that marriage lasted less than 10 years. A person can have multiple ex-spouses, and all marriages which lasted 10+ years qualify for an ex-spouse benefit!

b) A woman was married for 27 years to a high-wage earner, and they divorced years ago. She did not work outside of the home and does not have an earnings record to qualify for her own benefit. She is 66 and unmarried, so she would qualify for a benefit based on her ex-spouse’s record.

However, if she were to marry her current partner, she would no longer be eligible for her ex-spousal benefits. If the new spouse was not receiving benefits, she could not claim spousal benefits until he or she filed for benefits. Additionally, if the new partner is not a high wage earner, her “old” benefit based on the ex-spouse may be higher! Some retirees today are actually not remarrying because of the complexity it adds to their retirement and estate planning. And in some cases, there is an actual reduction in benefits by remarrying.

3) Survivor Benefits. If a spouse has already started their Social Security benefits and then passes away, the surviving spouse may continue to receive that amount or their own, whichever is higher. The survivor’s benefit can never be more than what they would receive if the spouse was still alive.

If the deceased spouse had not yet started benefits, the widow or widower can start survivor benefits as early as age 60, but this amount is reduced based on their age (See Chart). Widows or widowers who remarry after they reach age 60 do not have their survivorship eligibility withdrawn or reduced.

One way to look at the survivorship benefit: which ever spouse has the higher earnings history, that benefit will apply for both spouse’s lifetimes. The higher benefit is essentially a joint benefit. For this reason, it may make sense for the higher earner to delay until age 70 to maximize their benefit. If their spouse is younger, is in terrific health, and has a family history of substantial longevity, it may be profitable to think of the benefit in terms of joint lifetimes.

Additionally, Social Security offers a one-time $255 death benefit and also has benefits for survivors who are disabled or have children under age 16 or who are disabled.

The challenge for planning is that none of these three benefits – spousal, ex-spouse, or survivor – are indicated on your Social Security statement. So it is very easy to make a mistake and not apply for a benefit. I like for my clients to send me a copy of their Social Security statements, and I have to say that more than half of the clients I have met don’t understand how these benefits work, even if they are aware that they are eligible.

Social Security Administration: it’s time to fix your statements. You can do better.

Does Rebalancing Improve Returns?

Posted On April 22, 2017 By Scott Stratton, CFP(R), CFA In Portfolio Management /

Like flossing, we’re told that we need to rebalance because it’s good for us. But does rebalancing improve returns? Like many financial questions, the unsatisfying answer is “it depends”. Today we are going to take a deeper dive into rebalancing, when it works, when it doesn’t, and why it is still a good idea.

You might choose a 60/40 allocation (60% stocks, 40% bonds) because that portfolio has certain risk and return characteristics which fit your needs. Over time, as the market moves, your portfolio is likely to diverge from its original allocation; rebalancing is placing the trades to restore your original 60/40 allocation.

If we assume that stocks grow at 8% and bonds at 3%, what would happen if you did not rebalance? With a higher return, the stocks would become a bigger portion of the portfolio. In fact, after 30 years, your allocation would have shifted from 60/40 to 86/14. It should be noted right at the outset that under the straight-line assumption of stocks outperforming bonds, your performance would be higher by never rebalancing. Selling stocks to maintain a 40% weighting in bonds would slow your growth.

However, if you wanted an aggressive portfolio, you wouldn’t have started with a 60/40 allocation. We should recognize from the outset that the primary goal of rebalancing is not to enhance returns but to maintain a target allocation.

But since the stock market does not move in a straight line and give us exactly 8% returns every year, rebalancing may have a benefit in taking advantage of temporary price disruptions. If the the market tumbles, rebalancing will buy stocks at those low prices. And when the market runs up and is high, rebalancing can sell overvalued stocks and add to the safety of bonds.

What is key to rebalancing, but poorly understood by investors, is that the frequency of rebalancing is a crucial consideration. There’s not just one way to rebalance. Let’s consider a couple of scenarios.

1) In a trending market, where stocks move in one direction for a long time, the more frequently you rebalance, the worse return you create.

For example, let’s imagine a Bull Market where stocks grow by 10% each quarter, and bonds only gain 0.75% per quarter. If you started with $100,000 in a 60/40 portfolio, and did nothing, you would have $129,059 at the end of one year. But if you rebalanced each quarter, your return would be $127,682. Here, rebalancing quarterly would have reduced your returns by $1,376.

But you thought rebalancing was supposed to enhance returns? When a market trend continues for a long period, you would be better off sticking with the trend, rather than rebalancing against the trend.

2) Interestingly, rebalancing also makes returns worse in prolonged bear markets, too.

Same situation: 60/40 portfolio with $100,000. Now let’s imagine a one-year Bear Market where stocks fall by 10% per quarter and bonds gain 0.75% per quarter. Without rebalancing, your portfolio would fall from $100,000 to $80.579. If you rebalanced each quarter, you would have made things even worse, with a drop from $100,000 to $79,076. Rebalancing would have extended your losses by $1,503, or 1.87%.

By rebalancing in a prolonged Bear Market, you were adding to stocks, even as they continued to lose value.

3) While rebalancing hurts returns in directional markets, it can improve returns in markets which are fluctuating. In this third example (still $100,000 in a 60/40 allocation), we assume that bonds return 0.75% per quarter, but that stocks go down 10%, then up 10%, then down 10% and then up 10%.

After one year, with no rebalancing, you’d have $100,019. If you rebalanced quarterly, you would have $100,482. That’s a nice difference in a basically flat market. While rebalancing hurts returns if there is a steady trend, it can improve returns when markets vacillate between positive and negative periods.

So what do we do? Not rebalancing (ever) is not a good choice because you will diverge from your risk preferences. We try to strike a balance in our rebalance frequency by doing it only once a year, and only when a position deviates by more than 5% from target levels.

By rebalancing annually, we allow for longer trends, since Bull or Bear markets can certainly last for at least 12 months. So if you see other firms that brag about rebalancing monthly or quarterly, please understand that more frequent rebalancing is not necessarily better or any guarantee that it will increase returns. As we have shown, there are reasons why more frequent rebalancing could actually make things worse in a Bear Market, which is right when you would want the most defense.

Additionally, we need to consider the costs of rebalancing. Besides transaction costs, in a taxable account, short-term gains are taxed as ordinary income. We hold our positions for at least 12 months before rebalancing to get preferential long-term rates. More frequent rebalancing could be creating an unnecessary tax bill.

With extremely low yields today, it may make sense for some young, aggressive investors to consider being 100% in stocks. Then rather than focusing on rebalancing, you can take advantage of market drops by dollar cost averaging with new purchases. However, even in a 100% stock portfolio, you still have target weights in categories such as Large Cap, Small Cap, International, Emerging Markets, Real Estate, etc. And often it still makes sense to rebalance when one of those categories has a large move up or down.

Once you have accumulated some wealth, whether that is $300,000 or $3 million, you really have to think about how you would feel if the market fell by 50%. From a behavioral perspective, having a target allocation and a rebalancing process means that you have created a framework, a discipline, for how you will respond to the inevitable Bull and Bear market cycles. And the process of rebalancing – to buy low and sell high – is definitely preferable to our innate response, which is often to buy when there is euphoria and to throw in the towel when the market plunges.

Hopefully, you now understand that rebalancing is not a guarantee to enhance returns. In fluctuating markets, it can help you buy low and sell high. But in long-trending markets, the more frequently you rebalance, the more you will reduce your returns, whether it is a Bull Market or a Bear Market. So we can’t blindly just say that rebalancing is good, we have to use it intelligently.

Declutter Your Space, Declutter Your Mind

Posted On April 15, 2017 By Scott Stratton, CFP(R), CFA In Behavioral Finance / 1 Comment

There are remarkable benefits to tackling clutter, whether that clutter is physical, mental, or financial. Clutter creates added stress and tends to freeze people from taking action and doing what is important and in their best interest. Some of the key benefits of working with a financial planner include getting organized, consolidating accounts, and having a coherent strategy for your financial life. It’s not rocket science, yet somehow, it can be so difficult for people to do what they know they should do. We aim for simplicity in everything we do.

We all can benefit from decluttering. But where to start? It can be a daunting task. It’s so daunting in fact, that most people don’t even want to bother. But clutter can represent fear, self-doubt, fatigue, and guilt. If you’re a perfectionist, clutter is a reminder of your failures and lack of control.

Do we need all this stuff? Many of us have hoarding tendencies, a love of material items, and a feeling that we “need” more things to be happy. We were raised this way. Our grandparents lived through the Great Depression, and they learned to never throw anything away in case they needed it later. That scarcity mentality is fear-based and was passed down from generation to generation. We have to unlearn that more is always better.

When you are able to reduce clutter, it feels wonderful. How can you get started?

1) Start small. Just fill one box or one trash bag with stuff you can get rid of. Maybe this will be easy for you. But for many of us it’s tough to decide that you don’t need something. Ask your self these questions:

– When was the last time I needed this, used this item, or wore this clothing? Was it this month, or was it years ago?
– What would happen if I did not have this item? Would I miss it? Would I need it? If it’s rarely used, could I borrow one from a friend?
– Would I buy this again today?

2) Give with a purpose. Maybe there is someone else who would benefit from your unneeded item, who would appreciate it, and give it a new life. Why keep it in your closet, if it could be helping someone else?

There are many local charities that will accept your used items. Since I foster for Operation Kindness, let me share this: You can donate your unwanted clothes, shoes, books, toys, and small appliances to Operation Kindness. They will even pick up your items at your house! Just schedule a pick-up at www.DonateForKindness.org. And be sure to keep a list of your items for tax time, so you can take a deduction for a non-cash charitable donation.

Or donate to another charity of your choice. Or sell your stuff on Craigslist, or on eBay, or at your neighborhood yard sale, and make a few bucks. Some people have made thousands selling extra things in their house.

3) Set a timer for 30 minutes. When confronted with a large and unpleasant task, it’s easy to feel overwhelmed. Who knows how long it will take? This causes us to procrastinate getting started.

Here’s what I do: just set a timer for 30 minutes and GO. You don’t have to have a plan, just attack whatever seems to be the area of greatest need and keep moving for 30 minutes. I often find that I actually clean the room or rooms in less than 30 minutes. When the bell rings, I stop and move on with my day.

You can do anything for 30 minutes, and psychologically, it is easier to say “I am going to clean for 30 minutes” than to leave it open-ended, “I am going to clean this clutter.” Even when I don’t finish in 30 minutes, I have often made a significant dent – 50%, 75%, even 90% complete. Don’t let Great be the enemy of Good. If we can just spend 30 minutes, we may find that we achieved the result we needed, and often that is good enough.

The next day, you can always go for another 30 minutes. You don’t have to declutter all at once. We only have so much time, attention span, and energy. Give yourself permission to take small bites. It’s okay – you are moving in the right direction.

4) Stop digging. As the saying goes, if you are in a hole, the first step is to stop digging. Step back a figure out why you are accumulating so much stuff. Is shopping a hobby? Do you buy stuff when you are bored, or stressed, or tired? Do you buy things you regret, that you don’t need?

Become more aware of your feelings about things. Acknowledge those feelings, those triggers, and find an alternative action. Take up a new hobby, go to the gym, find something else to fill those feelings other than shopping.

5) Outsource. Hire a personal assistant or a housekeeper or someone to do the work you hate doing. No need to feel guilty, there are only so many hours in the week. And if you hate doing some type of work, why do it? You can spend your time more productively elsewhere.

Decluttering creates a feeling of empowerment. I am in charge. I am organized. I am ready to make decisions and remove any obstacles in my way. Getting rid of clutter is like taking a weight off your shoulders. You aren’t even aware of how much it is a burden until you get rid of it.

There are benefits to your house, to your stress levels, and even to your relationship with your spouse and children. Decluttering is not just about stuff, it’s about your mindset.

If you can tackle decluttering your house, you can apply many of the same steps to your financial clutter:
1) Start small, just do one thing.
2) Set aside 30 minutes to organize your finances tonight. Don’t keep putting it off!
3) Change behavior that isn’t in line with your goals.
4) Outsource to a professional, to a Certified Financial Planner professional like me.

TIPS: Not Attractive Yet

Posted On April 10, 2017 By Scott Stratton, CFP(R), CFA In Portfolio Management /

I love TIPS, but I’m going to tell you why you should not own them today. Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS) are government bonds, backed by the US Treasury. They pay two ways: a fixed interest rate (coupon) paid every six months, and an adjustment to your principal based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U). The dollar amount of interest increases when CPI goes up.

TIPS are considered by many to be a nearly “ideal” investment. Most traditional bonds have a set face value of $1,000, which creates inflation risk. The $1,000 you will get back 10 years from now will not have the same purchasing power as $1,000 does today. This inflation risk is nullified by TIPS. And it doesn’t even matter what inflation is: whether it is 1% or 10%, your purchasing power will be preserved by TIPS. It’s a remarkable benefit which makes TIPS “safer” at preserving wealth than a CD or savings account, while carrying none of the market risk of stocks.

At my previous firm, we had tens of millions of dollars invested in TIPS as a core fixed income holding. At my urging, we sold almost all of these bonds between 2012 and 2013. Why? As interest rates fell, the prices of TIPS skyrocketed. Yields on TIPS became negative; investors were willing to pay so much for these bonds that they were guaranteed to not keep up with inflation. Our clients had made a handsome profit in TIPS, but would have made less than inflation if we continued to hold. So we sold the TIPS and moved into other types of bonds.

The yield on TIPS are determined by auction, and the Treasury presently issues 5-year, 10-year, and 30-year TIPS. Institutional investors compare TIPS yield to fixed rate Treasury Bonds. For example, the most recent 10-Year TIPS auction on March 31, 2017 produced a yield of 0.466% (plus inflation). Compared this to the current yield on a fixed 10-Year note of about 2.3% and you get an inflation expectation of 1.8% over the next 10 years.

For big banks, this creates arbitrage opportunities if they think that the market inflation expectations are wrong. This arbitrage mechanism means that the rate on TIPS will likely be tied closely to regular Treasury Interest Rates.

For investors, if you think that we were going to have extreme inflation over the next 10 years, you would prefer to invest in the TIPS rather than the 2.3% fixed rate 10-Year note. But that is speculation, and I am not interested in speculating on inflation rates, thinking that we know more than all of Wall Street.

However, the forces which drove down interest rates and gave us a reason to sell our TIPS at high prices appear to be reversing. The Federal Reserve has started to raise interest rates, which may mean that last summer’s 1.6% 10-Year yield was the top of a 30-year bond Bull Market. As interest rates rise, the price of existing bonds will drop. And that will be painful for holders of 10 year and especially 30 year bonds, including TIPS.

Back when you could buy TIPS and earn 2%, 3% or more above inflation, that was a compelling return for a very low risk bond. Today, the yields on TIPS are less than 0.5% on the 5 and 10 year TIPS and below 1% on the 30 year TIPS. In 2 of the 3 auctions in 2016, the yields on the 5-year TIPS were negative. These rates are simply too low to include in our portfolios. Add in the risk of rising interest rates (= falling bond prices), and the appeal of 10 and 30 year TIPS are gone for me.

There is an alternative to TIPS which do not carry the risk of rising rates: I-Series Savings Bonds. Like TIPS, I-Bonds are linked to CPI-U and also carry a fixed rate of return. You purchase and redeem I-Bonds through TreasuryDirect.gov. They are issued as 30-year bonds, but you can redeem them anytime after 1 year (3 months interest penalty if redeemed in the first 5 years). Since you can redeem them directly with the government, you don’t have to worry about market losses caused by rising interest rates. If there are better alternatives in 5 years, you could simply cash out your I-Bonds and take your money elsewhere.

I-Bonds would be a logical alternative to TIPS, except for two big problems: 1) The current fixed rate is zero. Since 2010, it has been zero for most of the time, briefly reaching only 0.10% or 0.20%. 2) Each taxpayer is limited to buying $10,000 of I-Bonds a year and you cannot own them in an IRA or brokerage account. Still, if the fixed rate on I-Bonds were the same as TIPS, I would buy those first, before buying any TIPS.

There may come a time when it will be attractive to buy I-Bonds or TIPS. For now, interest rates are too low and inflation is not an immediate risk. Still, there are many appealing benefits to these bonds. While preserving purchasing power is the primary difference to other bonds, from a portfolio construction standpoint, there are other benefits, including extremely low default risk, relatively low volatility, and much lower correlation to equities than corporate bonds.

Today, I think we can get a higher return by taking on some credit risk versus government bonds, whose interest rates have been held down by central banks. It has been nearly 10 years now since the peak of the mortgage/financial crisis, but we are just now starting to emerge from a global Zero Interest Rate Policy. That unwinding will take many years and will have a big impact on fixed income for years to come.

Robots and The Future of Work

Posted On April 3, 2017 By Scott Stratton, CFP(R), CFA In Financial Planning /

Technology will change work in ways we can only begin to imagine. Self-driving cars and trucks, for example, could eliminate 4 million transportation jobs in the next 10 or 20 years in the US alone. But it’s not just blue collar jobs which will be replaced. In medicine, we will increasingly see hospitals turning to artificial intelligence for diagnoses and incredibly precise robots for surgical procedures. It’s not that we won’t have human doctors, just that many of the tasks that they currently spend hours on every week could be done by computers with better accuracy, more consistency, and lower cost.

In finance, Blackrock, one of the world’s largest asset managers, announced last week they would be reducing the number of actively managed funds they offer, to focus more on quantitative investing using computer models. Rather than using human research and analysis, they are finding that computers may be better stock pickers, especially after costs are considered.

Jobs in manufacturing today are more likely lost to automation than to outsourcing to another country with a lower cost of labor. In almost every industry, fewer workers will be needed, and eventually we will even have robots designing, building, and repairing other robots.

With human workers being replaced by robots, Bill Gates has proposed taxing robots for the economic value of their productivity, rather than taxing humans based on their income. (Gates’ comments appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, and elsewhere this month.) This would help address the loss of tax revenue as companies employ fewer humans to create the same or higher economic output.

A frequently discussed use of a “robot tax” would be to create a universal living wage for all people, to help offset the loss of income from automation. It’s a novel idea.

It will be interesting to see what jobs will look like 25 and 50 years from now. Change is inevitable. Just as Henry Ford made horse drawn buggies obsolete, today’s technologies will inevitably cause some industries to go away. Instead of trying to save jobs in manufacturing, trucking, or coal mining, we might be smarter to not stand in the path of progress, and focus on being a leader in technology, automation, and clean energy.

Those are challenges for countries. I see two distinct challenges for individuals:

1) Are you in a profession which could be replaced by automation or new technology? If so, can you adapt while maintaining or improving your current income? Can you keep from becoming obsolete in a rapidly changing economy? Smart workers will manage their careers and proactively change jobs before it is forced upon them.

2) Your financial security will depend on your savings. Social Security is projected to be bankrupt by 2034 (when I turn 62, just my luck…), and many municipal and corporate pensions are significantly underfunded. It’s easy to bemoan that we deserve what was promised to us, but that doesn’t change the math: people are living longer, the ratio of workers to retirees has fallen dramatically, and the money simply isn’t there. What seemed feasible in 1950 or 1980 we know doesn’t work with 2017’s demographics.

There is no easy fix to just keep these programs as they are today without enormous tax increases. There will be cuts to retirement programs, whether that occurs through increasing the retirement age, reducing benefits, etc. I believe they will continue to exist, just perhaps not in their current form. People who will derive the bulk of their retirement income from Social Security are at the greatest risk of poverty.

It may seem depressing to think about how the future may displace workers, but technological progress is going to be net positive for society. We will reduce mundane and dangerous jobs, lower costs of goods and services, and increase our total wealth and consumption. And people who say that we don’t make anything anymore aren’t considering the impact and future benefits that are going to come from US leaders like Apple, Tesla, Google, and hundreds of other medical, software, and energy innovations. Work will change – for the better.

How to Help Your Millennial Children With Money

Posted On March 27, 2017 By Scott Stratton, CFP(R), CFA In Financial Planning /

Your kids are recently out of college and starting to make their way in the world. They have a mountain of student loans, an underpaying job, and are just making ends meet. How can you help them become prosperous? Should you help them financially?

Today’s recent grads face a tougher job market and a longer career path than previous generations. The cost of a college education has become staggering. Long gone are the times when you could put yourself through college by working a summer job or waiting tables on the weekends. Those jobs aren’t going to cover the $50,000 tuition bills at a private university today. Even students who work through college can finish with $40,000, $60,000, $80,000 or more in debt.

I’ve also seen parents go too far and give their children million dollar homes, creating unreasonable expectations and a total lack of drive and ambition. Why work if you’re just going to be given whatever you need? Parents risk having adult children who don’t value money and have no interest in developing their own financial success.

There are, I think, a number of creative ways to help your children financially without simply writing them a blank check. Parents want to prevent their children from falling on their faces, but we have to remember that challenges often teach us the most important lessons. Children often copy their parents’ money habits, and not talking about money isn’t going to help your kids become responsible adults. Here are ways to help.

1) Rent to Roth. If your kids are going to move back home after college, consider charging a nominal amount for rent, based on what they can afford. If that’s only $200 or $300 a month, fine. Then, take that money and put it into a Roth IRA in their name. Give them the account after they move out.

There is an enormous benefit to starting early for retirement saving. If they save $3,600 at age 23 and 24 ($300 a month), and earn 8%, they’d have over $175,000 at age 65 just from those two years! But they have to not touch this money – to leave it invested and not spend it on student loans, or a car, or a house, or a wedding. It’s got to be off limits!

2) Give them this book. It is a gem. It’s short and they could read it in one afternoon. If they read it, they will know more about money than 99% of their peers. (And if they don’t read it, you’re only out $12.)

3) Mom and Dad’s Matching Program. Rather than making an outright gift of cash and hoping they use those funds wisely, offer to match their funds for goals like student loans, buying a used car, or funding an investment account like a 401(k) or IRA. This at least requires that they also contribute towards their financial goals rather than making everything a free-bee. Support financial needs which will make them more self-sufficient, rather than inadvertently making them more dependent on their parents for living expenses. Ask if this support is empowering or enabling?

4) Sign them up for my Wealth Builder Program, which is specifically designed for their needs. I will work one on one with them on their financial goals, including loan repayment, risk management, savings strategies, and investing. They get advice from their own fiduciary, which they may accept more readily than advice from a parent! Your cost is $200 a month. Alternatively, if you’re working with another financial advisor, ask if they will include your adult children as part of your household, but meet with them separately.

5) Encourage Entrepreneurship. Working families think that an education is the key to financial success. And to some extent, it is. But wealthy families know that owning a business is the real path to financial independence. Consider how you can encourage, support, and invest in your children starting a business.

Just remember before sinking your whole nest egg into their yoga studio (or whatever) that 80% of new businesses disappear in less than 5 years. If you are going to commit money to an idea, then it should be a sensible investment – either equity in the business or a loan with specific terms – and not a gift. It must be in line with your own investment strategies and not represent a substantial change to your risk profile.

An estimated two-thirds of parents are financially supporting their children over the age of 21. While this may be a new reality, it is also wreaking havoc with many parents’ finances and their ability to save for retirement. In some cases, we also need to be candid about what the parents can or cannot afford and what these sacrifices may mean for the parents’ finances. This is where a financial planner can provide an independent, objective point of view to make sure that your generosity is not going to jeopardize your own goals or become a permanent need for support.

10 Ways to Wreck Your Portfolio

Posted On March 19, 2017 By Scott Stratton, CFP(R), CFA In Behavioral Finance, Portfolio Management /

Over the years, I’ve seen hundreds of portfolios and 401(k) accounts, and observed investors make tons of mistakes. Admittedly, I have made many of these errors on my own as well, just to double check! Here’s your chance to learn from others’ losses. But, if you still insist that you want to ruin your rate of return, go ahead and make these 10 mistakes…

1) Rely on Past Performance. You invest with winners, not losers! Just find the top performing fund offered by your 401(k) and put all your money in there. That’s why they say past performance is a guarantee of future returns, or something like that.

2) Don’t diversify. Have you seen that Chinese Small-Cap BioTech fund? Why invest in the whole market when you can bet on one tiny, minuscule sliver?

3) Ignore the fact that 80% of actively managed funds under perform their benchmark over five years. You’re going to pick funds from the other 20%. Indexing is for people who are willing to settle for average.

4) Put as much money as possible into your company stock. It’s beat the S&P 500 for X number of years, therefore you’d be stupid to ever take your money out of company stock or to cash in your options. And since you work there, you know more about this investment than anyone. Just like the employees at Nortel, Worldcom, and Enron.

5) To avoid paying taxes, don’t sell your winners. Don’t rebalance or sell overvalued shares. Later, if the stock is down 40% you can pat yourself on the back: “Thank God I didn’t sell when it was up and have to pay 15% tax on my gains. I dodged that bullet!”

6) Never sell your losers either. The loss isn’t real until you sell, and the most important thing is to protect your ego. If you hold on, eventually, you should get your money back. So what if another fund returns 60% while you are waiting for yours to rebound 30%? (Says the guy who has old General Motors shares that are worthless from when the company filed for bankruptcy and wiped out their stockholders.)

7) Do it yourself. Don’t use funds or ETFs, pick individual stocks yourself! It will be fun and easy. Just look at all those smiling people on the commercials for online brokers, they’re getting rich from their kitchen tables! Anyone can beat those fancy investment managers with their extensive training, huge research departments, and decades of experience. And if you spend all day watching your portfolio, it magically grows faster!

8) You know when to get in and out of the market. It’s not market timing if you know what you’re doing. When the market is down, it’s a bad market, so don’t buy then. Wait until the market goes back up before you make your purchases. You should toss out a detailed 20-year financial plan if your gut tells you. And by gut, of course, we mean CNBC, Fox News, or whatever you watched in the preceding 48 hours.

9) When the market is down, your funds are horrible, the managers incompetent, and the market is rigged. When your portfolio is up, it’s because of your brilliant mind for finance. You are investing for decades, but if your portfolio doesn’t go up every single quarter something is horribly wrong with your approach. Change everything you own when this happens.

10) All the good investments are reserved for the wealthy. You can only become rich by investing in complicated, non-transparent private placements or limited partnerships in oil, real estate, leasing, or something you cannot explain in less than three minutes. And it’s rude to ask how much these programs charge, that’s so gauche. On a related note, you should always buy penny stocks that you hear about through an email.

I know no one really wants to wreck their portfolio, but from my vantage point, a lot of our investment pains appear self-inflicted. I can help you avoid these ten mistakes and many, many others. Even more important than avoiding errors, together we can create a financial plan and investment program that will be tailored to your goals, rather than focusing on what the market might do this month or this year.

Professional advice. Comprehensive financial planning. Evidence-based investment management. Ongoing evaluation, monitoring, and adjustment. Those are our tools to help investors succeed. That doesn’t mean that there won’t be years when the market is down, but it does mean we will be better prepared and much less likely to make the mistakes which can make things worse.

The Rate of Return of Life Insurance

Posted On March 19, 2017 By Scott Stratton, CFP(R), CFA In Financial Planning /

Life insurance is a necessity for many families to protect them from the unexpected potential loss of income that could occur with a loss of life. For young families, term insurance is an excellent vehicle to address this risk.

As we get older, we hopefully have generated some wealth and we will have fewer future expenses. At some point, your kids will be out of college, you may have paid off your house, and accumulated a nice size retirement account. Each year, your need for life insurance is reduced, and eventually, you may be able to self-insure the risk of an unexpected death.

Still, I know that many pre-retirees like the idea of having a permanent life insurance policy to leave money for their spouse, heirs, or charity. Unlike a Term policy, “permanent” life insurance may provide a specified death benefit for as long as you keep the policy in force. Obviously, a permanent policy is much more expensive than term insurance. But is it a good rate of return?

It depends on how long you live! The longer you live, the more premiums you pay, and the longer your heirs have to wait to receive a fixed payout. Therefore the return is lower. Here’s an example.

For a 60 year old male in good health, you might pay $8,000 a year for a $500,000 policy. Even if you live for another 25 years, that means your heirs would receive $500,000 and you only paid $200,000 in premiums. That must be a good return, right? Let’s take a look:

$500,000 future payout, cost is $8,000 a year.
Rate of Return

10 Years	32.1%
15 Years	16.5%
20 Years	9.9%
25 Years	6.5%
30 Years	4.4%

I would say the return is excellent if you live for 20 years or less. If you live for 30 years or more, you may have more total wealth if instead of purchasing insurance, you had simply kept your $8,000 a year invested. Historically, it has not been very difficult to beat 4.4% over 30 years. So as a long-term investment, I don’t like life insurance. Which brings us back to the primary purpose of life insurance in my mind: to protect against the danger of pre-mature death.

To be fair, the rate of return on insurance is generous because so many policies lapse. When that happens, insurers will have received years of premiums and never have to pay out a death benefit. Other policy holders will borrow from their policies, causing them to deplete and never payout. I believe the majority of people who start a permanent policy will never receive a death benefit because of their own choices.

I should add that getting the best price on a life insurance policy is no easy task. Underwriting for a permanent policy will be rigorous, looking at your health, weight, blood tests, family and occupational history and more. Now, if your premium was higher than $8,000 a year for this hypothetical policy, the rates of return above would obviously be much lower.

My recommendation for most people: get term to cover you until your kids are out of college. For many people, that will be the only life insurance policy they will ever need. There are some good uses for permanent insurance, such as for business succession or estate planning. But it’s not the vehicle financial planners prefer for long-term wealth accumulation.