How a Benchmark Can Reduce Home Bias

Posted On October 26, 2015 By Admin In Portfolio Management / 2 Comments

Home Bias is the tendency for investors to prefer, and greatly overweight, the stocks of their local, domestic companies to the detriment of their portfolio’s performance. If you lived in Sweden, where local equities comprise only 1% or so of the world’s equity markets, and still had most of your money in “domestic” stocks, you’d obviously be missing out on a great deal of opportunities and diversification.

From our vantage point here in the United States, the local Swedish investor is likely losing out by only investing locally. As obvious as that example appears to us, many US investors do the same thing. Today, US stocks comprise only half of the value of equities worldwide and represent only 25% of the total number of stocks. Both figures are likely to drop significantly in the decades ahead as foreign populations, economies, and stock markets grow at a pace much faster than here in America.

50 years ago, or even 25 years ago, it was difficult to invest in international equities, so investors stuck with local stocks out of necessity. Today it is as easy to invest in foreign stocks or bonds as it is to invest in domestic securities, and yet many investors still have little or no weighting in foreign holdings in their portfolios.

By allowing their Home Bias to persist, investors miss out on the benefits of diversification. Fidelity published a study this August, looking at US versus Foreign stock performance from 1950 through 2014. Over this period, US stocks had an annualized return of 11.3%, slightly ahead of the foreign stock return of 10.9%. Since foreign stocks lagged US stocks, you might think that adding them to a portfolio would make your return worse. Remarkably, that isn’t the case: a portfolio of 70% US / 30% Foreign equities produced a return of 11.4% over this period.

Adding foreign stocks improved returns because of diversification and rebalancing – when US stocks are down, foreign stocks may be up, or vice versa. In addition to increasing returns, the 70/30 mix also reduced volatility (standard deviation) from 14.4% to 13.1%. The Fidelity study is a great example of how diversification can help investors improve returns and lower risk at the same time. People who think that foreign stocks are riskier than US stocks aren’t looking at the bigger picture of what happens when you combine both types of stocks into one portfolio.

In recent years, US Stocks have performed well and as a result, carry a higher valuation today than Developed Market or Emerging Market stocks. If you are concerned about shifting some of your US funds to an international fund that has a worse 5-year track record, you may be placing too much weight on past performance – looking backward – rather than looking forward. The lower valuations found today in foreign stocks are a positive sign that there are opportunities for growth there. That’s no guarantee of what those stocks will do in the short-term, but generally, I think this is a smart time to be shifting from US to foreign stocks if you are underweight on the foreign side.

One of the ways we try to remove the behavioral “safety blanket” of familiar domestic equities, is through our benchmark. We run five portfolio models here at Good Life Wealth Management. Our benchmark for equities is the MSCI All-Country World Index (ACWI), and for a global portfolio that is a more appropriate benchmark than a US-only index like the S&P 500, Dow Jones Industrial Average, or the NASDAQ composite. The ACWI is currently 52% US Stocks and 48% Foreign stocks. I’m not saying that everyone needs to be invested in exactly that percentage (52/48), but by using the ACWI as a benchmark, we have the best measure of the performance of global equities. Then we can look at our own performance and see if the segment weightings we have selected were able to add value or not.

The internet has revolutionized business and today we truly have a world economy. It’s time that investors lose their Home Bias so they don’t miss out on the benefits of diversification. Using the All-Country World Index as our benchmark is a good way to start thinking globally in terms of our opportunities and how we create a portfolio.

Reversion to the Mean

Posted On October 19, 2015 By Admin In Behavioral Finance /

One of the more counter-intuitive financial concepts to embrace is reversion to the mean. Markets tend to behave in fairly consistent ways over the long-term. Wharton Finance Professor Jeremy Siegel examined 200 years of stock market returns and found that the average after-inflation rate of return of stocks, in all periods, was between 6.5% and 7.0%. This phenomenon has been named “Siegel’s constant” by economists. Even though the market can be down for 1 year or even 10 years, when we look at longer periods of 20 or more years, real returns have been remarkably uniform.

Investors are rewarded for their patience because returns do revert to the mean. This is an easy concept to understand, but the resulting decisions are often difficult to embrace, because they often require doing the opposite of what is currently working. When the tech sector was booming in the 1990’s, Blue Chip dividend stocks lagged, but that is precisely what you should have been buying in 1999 to avoid the subsequent meltdown in the over-valued tech stocks. This is obvious in hindsight, but at the time, it was very difficult to choose a lagging value fund, when you could have put your money into a hot sector fund that had returned 50% or more in the previous year.

One of the easiest ways to use mean reversion to your benefit is through rebalancing. When our positions deviate by more than 10% from our targets, we trim what has out performed and we purchase what has under performed. Besides helping us maintain our target allocation and risk profile, rebalancing can be beneficial by buying what is out of favor when it is on sale. The same benefit occurs when you dollar cost average in a volatile or declining market, or when you reinvest dividends over time.

A number of years ago, an analyst from Research Affiliates was visiting Dallas and dropped by my office to share a recent white paper they had produced on factors effecting index performance. They ranked stocks by factors such as momentum, and then tracked the performance of the stocks with either high or low momentum. Strangely, both the high and low momentum segments had a better long-term number the overall Index. At first, I thought this must have been a mistake, thinking both halves should equal the average of the whole index. But what was actually occurring was that the ranking process was in effect an annual rebalancing, dropping stocks from that segment when they peaked (in the high momentum category), and then adding them when they were out of favor (to the low momentum category). This annual rebalancing was actually a significant driver of investment returns.

The counter-intuitive part of rebalancing is that instead of buying what is working, you must buy what is lagging. This works for broad asset classes, but you should not apply this approach to individual stocks, lest you buy more of the next Enron. Stocks can go to zero, but categories do not.

And that brings us to today’s market. With volatility spiking in the third quarter, we have leading and lagging segments for 2015. Here are three categories of special interest today, in terms of reversion to the mean.

1. Growth continues to outperform value in 2015. Through October 16, the iShares S&P 500 Growth (IVW) is up 3.53% while the S&P 500 Value (IVE) is down 3.27%. The Growth ETF outperformed the Value ETF in 2014, 2013, and 2011. Over the past five years, the annualized return on the Growth ETF is 14.88% versus 12.52% for the Value ETF. Historically, Value outperforms Growth, and that is the case over the past 15 years for these two ETFs. Currently, Growth is in favor, but I think the smart approach for investors is to believe that the returns will be mean-reverting, and we will eventually, if not soon, see Value return to favor. Currently, Growth is benefiting from high returns from tech and health care sectors, which appear to be getting frothy. Value is being held back by energy stocks, which have been very weak this year. Our approach: we own a broad market index (iShares Russell 1000) which has both Growth and Value segments, plus we own a Value fund with a terrific long-term record of good risk-adjusted returns.

2. Emerging Markets have lagged Developed Markets. Through October 16, the Vanguard Emerging Markets ETF (VWO) is down 6.82%, compared to the iShares Russell 1000 (IWB) which is up 0.20%. The Emerging Markets ETF was also down in 2014, 2013, and 2011. Why would we want to hold such a perennial loser? Mean reversion, of course. While EM is currently out of favor, those stocks are becoming cheaper and cheaper while developed stocks are becoming increasingly expensive. Let’s look at a couple of metrics: for VWO, the Price to Earnings ratio is 11.75 and the Price to Book ratio is only 1.46. US Stocks (IWB) are much more expensive, with a PE ratio of 17.16 and a PB ratio of 2.26. The more concerned you are about US Stocks, the more you should want to own EM stocks. So despite a very difficult Q3 for Emerging Markets, we will continue to own the segment and will rebalance as needed in portfolios.

3. High Yield Bonds are down. The SPDR Short-Term High Yield (SJNK) is down 1.88% through October 16, while the Barclays Aggregate Bond Index is up 1.56% to the same date. As the price of high yield bonds declined this year, yields increased and the spread over Treasury bonds has widened, offering a better risk/return profile than previously. The yield on the 10-year Treasury remains around 2.1% today, while the SEC yield on SJNK has increased to 6.81%. But this is more like a series of popular online friv games than what is described above. That’s not to suggest that high yield bonds are risk-free, but the mean reverting approach suggests that the sell-off in high yield presents an opportunity relative to Treasuries.

Understanding the reversion to the mean is crucial for investors to offset the behavioral influence of recency bias. Recency bias is the natural tendency to mentally overweight the importance of recent events and to disregard a more rational decision making process. For example, if a coin turns up “heads” four times in a row, people are more likely to assume that the streak continues, even though the chance of the next coin toss remains 50% heads and 50% tails. The more coin tosses you make, the closer you will get to 50/50 over time. That’s mean reversion. If you understand this concept, you are less likely to make the mistake of assuming that last year’s hot sector, fund, or stock is the best place for your money today. Instead, you’ll realize that rebalancing is a smarter process than chasing past returns.

Data from Morningstar, as of October 18, 2015.

6 Ways to Reduce Stock Market Risk

Posted On August 31, 2015 By Admin In Portfolio Management /

We had a roller coaster ride this past week in the market. Last Monday, the Dow dropped nearly 1000 points as investors spooked from the previous Friday’s sell-off sold positions en masse. By Friday, however, the major indices recouped their losses and several even finished slightly ahead for the week. Anyone who sold during Monday’s mayhem locked in their losses and lost out on the subsequent rebound.

No one can predict what the stock market will do in the future, so I genuinely believe it is futile to respond to this week’s activity by making trades. The media has detailed the concerns which “caused” the market to drop this week, but there are always going to be reasons which drive the short-term gyrations of markets. This noise can distract investors from staying focused on their financial goals.

After an extended period of low volatility, a tough week often raises questions about how much risk is in your portfolio and how a downturn might impact your ability to fulfill your financial objectives like retirement. Before we invest, we have all our clients take the FinaMetrica risk assessment to better understand your personal beliefs and comfort with taking risk. Given the choice, we’d all prefer to have less risk in our portfolios. The reality, however, is that the reason stocks outperform other asset classes is that stocks provide a risk premium – that is a higher rate of return – in exchange for the volatility and unpredictable path of their results.

I am always interested in ways of reducing risk. While I think investors will have the highest long-term return by embracing risk intelligently with a diversified, index allocation, the most important factor is actually each investor’s behavior. If you aren’t willing to stay invested through the inevitable ups and downs of the market cycle, you are likely to greatly hurt your performance. The most important part of my job is educating investors and encouraging them to stick with the plan.

Investors want options and we are happy to suggest ways to reduce risk. Below are six ideas to reduce price volatility in your equity portfolio. Just bear in mind that “there is no such thing as a free lunch.” While each of these approaches can reduce risk, some may reduce your return as well. The first three strategies can be applied to a traditional portfolio; the second three options are slightly more unusual and may be unfamiliar to most investors.

Diversify. This is the most basic step, but forgetting this can be a big mistake. If you are investing in individual stocks, you are taking on specific risks that those positions could implode. This is an uncompensated risk which we can avoid entirely by investing broadly across the whole market. Over time, the majority of stock pickers fail to outperform the index. We prefer to invest in index exchange traded funds (ETFs). Diversification doesn’t always work quite as planned, but having non-correlated holdings improves the likelihood that when one category is down that other categories can offset or reduce those losses.
Increase your bond allocation. The biggest impact you can have on your overall portfolio risk is by changing your asset allocation. We run five model portfolios: Conservative (35% equities/65% fixed income), Balanced (50%/50%), Moderate (60%/40%), Growth (70%/30%), and Aggressive (85%/15%). If you want to shift to an allocation with less risk, the best time to change would be when the market is up. Be careful, because you are most likely to want to change at a market bottom, which is exactly the wrong time to become more conservative!
Consider Low Volatility ETFs. I’ve written about these previously. A Low Volatility ETF selects stocks from an index, but instead of weighting the positions by market capitalization, it weights the positions to emphasize the stocks with the lowest volatility. Historically, this process can produce a similar long-term return as a regular index, but with a somewhat less bumpy ride. How have they done recently? Over the past month, the iShares USA Minimum Volatility ETF (USMV) is down 2.72%, versus the iShares S&P 500 (IVV), which is down 4.80%. Year to date, USMV is up 0.83% versus IVV which is down 2.08%. In this time frame, the low volatility fund has been more defensive. However, you should expect a low vol strategy to under perform a traditional index fund in a bull market. For example, over the past three years, USMV’s annualized return of 13.59% has lagged IVV’s return of 14.50%. (Source: Morningstar.com as of August 28, 2015)
Bond + Options. Instead of buying an ETF that invests in the market, we can buy an option on the ETF or index. If you had $100,000 to invest in the S&P 500, we would purchase a zero coupon bond that would mature at $100,000 in several years. This bond would trade at a discount, say for $93,000. With the remaining $7,000, we would purchase an option on the S&P 500. At the end of the term, if the market was down, the option would expire worthless. However, you’d still get $100,000 back from the maturity of the bond and not lose any money. That’s a lot better than if you had put your $100,000 into an ETF, in which case, you could be down 30% or more. If the market was up, you’d receive the $100,000 from the bond and a gain from option on the index. While I love the simple elegance of this approach, there are three important considerations: i. With today’s low interest rates, the cost of bonds is quite high, leaving very little money to purchase an option. As a result, your option may not provide the same return as investing directly in the market. In other words, if the market was up 10%, your options may not return $10,000. ii. While this strategy eliminates stock market risk, it does introduce credit risk that the issuer of the bond defaults. iii. The option’s return will include price appreciation, but not dividends, so you will miss out on approximately 2% of yield that you would receive from investing in an ETF.
Equity-Linked CD. This is an FDIC insured CD, but instead of paying a fixed rate of return (like 2%), the return is based on the performance of an equity index, such as the S&P 500. If the market goes down, you are guaranteed to get your original principal back. Even if the bank goes bust, your CD is insured by the FDIC like a regular CD. Before you get too excited about this option, let me explain that you do not get the full start-to-finish return of the index. Rather they have a formula to calculate the CD return. For example, a common approach for a 5-year CD is to add up the 20 quarterly returns of the S&P 500, subject to a cap of 5% per quarter. This sounds good, but there are three caveats: i. If the market is up 20% in a quarter, you only get credit for 5%. But if the market is down 20%, that is a minus 20% counted towards the sum. ii. Since this approach adds quarterly returns instead of multiplying, you miss out on compounding. iii. Again, no dividends. An Equity-Linked CD is not redeemable during the term, so your return is not guaranteed if you do not hold to maturity.
Equity Indexed Annuity (EIA). Unlike the CD above where the return is unknown until the end of the term, most EIAs post a return annually using a “point to point” method. Typically this includes a cap on the annual return, and a floor of zero, so there are no negative years. These can be even more confusing than the CDs, however, because to access those returns and receive your money there may be withdrawal restrictions, surrender charges, and other complex rules. An annuity may work for someone who is close to retirement or in retirement and needing income with less market risk. For a younger investor, an annuity may not be the best fit.

The longer your time horizon, the less you should be concerned about short-term market volatility. We can implement any of these approaches for our investors and we’re happy to help you weigh your options to make the right choice for you. However, we don’t usually recommend numbers 4 through 6, because they’re likely to have a lower return. Let’s say that over 5 years, the market returns 8% a year, but one of these defensive strategies might only return 5%, because of no dividends (-2%) and because of caps or other weighting mechanisms (-1%). And over 5 years, that 3% difference in return on a $100,000 portfolio would make the difference between growing to $127,628 versus $146,923. What seems like just a small trade-off in performance becomes significant over time.

Risk may be a four-letter word, but you may be better served to think of risk as opportunity. This past week was a reminder that stock prices do go up and down, often randomly and sometimes quite painfully. This part of being an investor is challenging and frustrating, but also largely unimportant over time and out of our control. We are wiser to focus on the things we can control, including our saving, being diversified, and keeping costs and taxes to a minimum.

2015 Mid-Year Market Update

Posted On July 6, 2015 By Admin In Portfolio Management /

We’re half way through 2015. How are the markets are doing and what does this mean to investors? Here’s a report card and our thoughts on the second half of the year.

US Stocks have had a stubbornly stable year, staying in a very narrow band of just a couple of percent above and below where we started the year. The S&P 500 Index was up 1.23% as of June 30. Although the US economic recovery is stronger and further along than the rest of the world, this was already reflected in US stock prices on January 1. So even with significant issues facing Europe, including high unemployment in several countries and the continuing Greek debt debacle, foreign stocks have outperformed US stocks so far in 2015. We have more weight in US stocks in our portfolios, which means that our home bias has held back our performance slightly compared to the market-cap weighting of our benchmark, the MSCI All-Country World Index.

Looking at stock styles, small cap was ahead of large cap in both US and foreign stocks. Growth continued to outperform Value globally. Emerging markets rallied from a lackluster 2014, performing slightly better than US large cap. The higher performance of foreign stocks over US stocks was in spite of the headwinds of the US currency’s strength in 2015. If we look at foreign stocks in their local currencies, their performance was even higher than in dollar terms.

The US aggregate bond index was down 0.1% in the first half of the year, with treasury bond yields finally starting to rise. Our bond funds have fared slightly better than AGG so far this year, with most posting small but positive returns. Unfortunately, we remain at an uncomfortable point in time where both stocks and bonds seem to carry above average valuations and risks. While I believe forecasting should be left to weathermen, returns over the next couple of years will likely be lower than those over the previous five years.

Volatility has been muted this year, but we can’t assume that will continue indefinitely. There are concerns about the Federal Reserve raising interest rates, or a bond default in Greece or Puerto Rico, but these are known problems that have been ongoing for more than a year. What I fear could be more likely to roil the market would be some unknown event which no one is expecting or predicting.

The top performing holding in our portfolios was SCZ, the iShares EAFE Small Cap ETF, which was up 10.49% through June 30. The worst performer was VNQ, the Vanguard REIT Index, which was down 6.30% over the same period. Interestingly, these two positions were also the best and worst performing funds in 2014, but reversed. Last year, VNQ was up more than 30% while SCZ was down 6%. If you looked at the numbers after December 31, you probably would have liked VNQ and bought more of it, and disliked SCZ, and sold it. Both of those decisions would have been losing trades for the first half of 2015. And that’s the problem with trading based on performance – you’re buying yesterday’s winners and not tomorrow’s. It is usually better to not chase performance, stick with a diversified portfolio, and rebalance to a set allocation when positions move away from their target weighting.

We take a disciplined approach to portfolio construction, but accept that we have no control over what the market is going to do. The factors which we can control include: having a diversified allocation, minimizing costs and taxes, and most importantly, managing our behavior by making good decisions. While the first half of 2015 has been a sleeper, we should be mentally prepared for the market to throw a few surprises at us in the second half of the year. If or when this occurs, it will be important to hold course or better yet, invest new money and dollar cost average. No matter what happens, you can always call me and I promise to be available to talk or meet with you to review your individual situation and make sure we remain on track to meet your goals.

Data from Morningstar.com, as of 7/5/2015.

Why You Should Not Hold Bonds to Maturity

Posted On June 22, 2015 By Admin In Portfolio Management /

If you own individual bonds, as opposed to bond funds, you have the option to sell your bonds rather than holding them to maturity. There are a number of reasons why you might sell a bond before it matures, but we’re going to focus on an important opportunity bond investors have today to enhance returns through roll yield.

In recent years, short-term interest rates have been very low, which causes a steep yield curve. A corporate bond might have a yield to maturity of 3-5% when it has 5-10 years to maturity, but a similar bond with only one year before maturity may yield only 1-2%. Bond yields and prices have an inverse relationship, so as bonds near maturity, their yields shrink and the prices of those bonds increase.

Here’s an example: Let’s say we purchase a 5-year bond with a 5% coupon at par ($1000). One year later, the bond has four years remaining, and let’s say that similar bonds have a yield to maturity of 4%. The price of our 5% bond is now $1036. If we sell the bond after one year, we will have received $50 in interest, and we will made $36 in capital gains, for a total increase of $86, or 8.6%. The $36 gain is the roll yield, and it nicely enhanced our return from 5% to 8.6% for just one year.

When you buy most bonds, it’s not likely that the price of the bond will stay the same until maturity. Because of the steepness of today’s yield curve (low short-term rates), bond investors can benefit from selling bonds above par before maturity. If we go back to our example of a 5% coupon bond, let’s fast forward a couple of years to when the bond has just one year left to maturity. If the yield on 1-year bonds is 1.5%, our bond would be worth $1034. We could sell for $1034 today versus waiting a year to get back $1000. And while we’d miss out on the final $50 in interest payments, we could use our $1034 to buy other bonds further out on the yield curve. Also, given that the $34 gain would be treated as a capital gain (at a 15% tax rate for many investors), whereas the $50 bond interest would be treated as ordinary income (25%, 28%, 33%, 39.6% or higher), the after-tax return of selling a year early is almost the same as holding until maturity.

Generally, we advocate a laddered approach to individual bonds, but for the last several years, low interest rates have made it possible to sell bonds a couple of years before maturity to take advantage of roll yield. If your bonds are priced with a yield to maturity of 2% or less, it is definitely worth a look to see if you might benefit from selling rather than holding to maturity. This type of active management takes a bit of work, and frankly, we don’t see a lot of other advisors providing this level of service.

We typically suggest using bond funds for portfolios under $1 million dollars, because it is difficult to achieve a satisfactory level of diversification on smaller portfolios. The managers of your bond fund are likely looking closely at roll yield as well as other reasons to buy or sell bonds, to take advantage of the current interest rate environment. This is one of the reasons that it may be easier for fixed income managers to have a better chance of outperforming their benchmark than equity managers. While 65-80% of equity managers typically underperform their benchmark over five years, according to S&P, only 41.09% of intermediate investment grade bond funds were beaten by their benchmark from 2010 through 2014.

Equities tend to get all the attention, but many of our clients have 30 to 50 percent of their portfolio in fixed income. It’s important that investors do a good job selecting and managing both their equity and fixed income holdings. If you currently have a portfolio of individual bonds, bring me a statement for a complementary portfolio review. I’ll analyze your portfolio and suggest which bonds to keep and which ones to sell and replace. Or if you’re trying to decide between individual bonds or bond funds, please give me a call.

Fixed Annuities in Place of Bonds?

Posted On June 15, 2015 By Admin In Portfolio Management /

Today’s low interest rate environment is challenging for investors. Cash is paying virtually nothing, and even the 10-year Treasury has a yield of only 2.3% to 2.4%. If you do invest in longer-dated bonds, you have the risk of falling prices if interest rates begin to rise.

Low interest rates have pushed many investors to seek out higher yielding securities. But, there is no free lunch, as higher bond yields come with lower credit quality, heightened risk of default, and increased volatility.

Treasury bonds are a good tool for portfolio construction, because they have a very low correlation to equities. However, if investors replace those very safe (but low yielding) Treasuries with high yield bonds, they are increasing the probability that both their equity and fixed income positions will be down at the same time.

In 2008, for example, as equities tumbled, the iShares High Yield ETF (HYG) was down more than 17% for the year. Although high yield bonds have a place, investors need to understand that junk bonds may not provide much defense when the stock market takes a dive.

Cautious investors have been hiding out in short-term bonds, which might be yielding 1% or less. And while that will limit losses if rates rise, no one knows how long we will be stuck with today’s low rates. If low rates persist for years, short-term bonds aren’t providing much return to help you achieve your investment goals.

As an alternative to taking the risks of chasing yield, or the opportunity cost of hiding in short-term bonds or cash, some investors might want to consider a Fixed Annuity. These come in a variety of formats, but I am only suggesting annuities with a fixed, multi-year guaranteed rate. These are sometimes compared to CDs, but it is very important that investors understand how annuities differ.

Here’s the attraction: we can offer up to 3.25%, principal and interest guaranteed, on a 5-year Fixed Annuity today. And that’s the net figure to investors, which is fairly compelling for a safe yield. It’s more than 1% higher than the SEC yield on a US Aggregate Bond Index fund, like AGG.

Here are five key points to help you understand how annuities work and determine if an annuity is a good choice for you.

Tax-deferral. Annuities are a tax-sheltered account. While you don’t get an upfront tax deduction, an Annuity will grow tax-deferred until you withdraw your money. When withdrawn, gains are taxed as ordinary income, and do not receive capital gains treatment.
Like an IRA, withdrawals from an Annuity prior to age 59 1/2 are considered a pre-mature distribution and subject to a 10% penalty. This is an important consideration: only invest in an Annuity money that you won’t need until after age 59 1/2. This is obviously easier for someone who is in their 50’s or 60’s compared to younger investors.
Limited liquidity. Annuity companies want investors who can commit to the full-term and not need to access their principal. They may impose very high surrender charges on investors who withdraw money before the term is completed.
At the end of the term, investors have several options. You can take your money and walk away. You can leave the money in the annuity at the current interest rate (often a floor of 1%). You can roll the annuity into a new annuity and keep it tax deferred. If the annuity is an IRA already, you can roll it back into your regular IRA brokerage account. Or lastly, you can annuitize the contract, which means you can exchange your principal for a series of monthly payments, guaranteed for a fixed period, or for life. I don’t think very many investors annuitize – most will walk away or reinvest into another annuity.
Annuities are guaranteed by the issuing insurance company, and that guarantee is only as good as the financial strength of the company. Similar to how CDs are insured the by the FDIC, investors in Annuities are protected by your state Guaranty Association (Texas Guaranty Association). Since coverage for annuities in Texas is only up to $250,000, I would never invest more than this amount with any one company.

What I like about the annuity is that it can provide a guaranteed rate of return and price stability, unlike a bond fund. An annuity also can reduce a number of types of portfolio risks, such as interest rate risk, default risk, and will have no correlation to equity returns.

Is an annuity right for you? You should be able to invest the funds for at least 3-7 years and have ample money elsewhere you can access in case of an emergency. You can invest money from an IRA or a regular account, but either way, should not plan on withdrawing money from an annuity until after age 59 1/2. And we’re only using money that would have otherwise been allocated to bonds, CDs, or cash in your investment portfolio. If this describes you, please give me a call at 214-478-3398 and we can discuss Fixed Annuities and their role in your portfolio in greater detail.

Please note that as an insurance product, an annuity will pay the issuing agent a commission. Clients are not charged an AUM fee on monies invested in Annuities. We aim to disclose all conflicts of interest and provide transparency on how we are paid.

Win by Avoiding These Mistakes

Posted On June 8, 2015 By Admin In Behavioral Finance /

This week, I heard an orchestra conductor say, “It’s not simple to make it sound easy.” While he was talking about music, I was thinking how this applies to investing, too. The more we know about investing and the more experience we have, the more we recognize the benefits of following a very straightforward approach. You don’t have to be a genius to be a successful investor, you just have to avoid making a couple of big mistakes. The game of investing is not won by brilliant moves, but rather by patience and avoiding the common pitfalls that lure investors in year after year.

It’s easy to recognize mistakes in hindsight. The challenge is to anticipate these outcomes in advance, so you can prevent these these errors whenever you are tempted to make changes to your portfolio. Is your decision based on a logical examination of the facts, or an emotional response or ingrained bias? You can be successful over time by following a smart plan, even if it is not complicated. Let the market run its course and know that your plan will work best when you don’t get in the way! Here are three of most costly mistakes I’ve seen investors make in the past 15 years and the solution for you to avoid these each of these missteps. These are real, actual people, but I’ve changed the names here to protect their identity. Learn from their losses!

1) Lack of diversification. 10 years ago, I met Peter who was a client of another financial advisor at my firm. Peter was an engineer at Nortel, and like many employees at tech companies in the 90’s, he received substantial stock options. For years, the stock would double and split every 18 m0nths or so, which meant that anyone who sold their stock options regretted not holding for longer. Peter had more than 12,000 options when Nortel hit $90 a share in the spring of 2000, giving his options a value of over $1 million. At every meeting, they discussed exercising his options, selling his shares and diversifying, but Peter wanted to wait longer. The stock fell to $85, and Peter finally agreed to sell, but said that he had his heart set on a higher price and would sell as soon as it got back over $90 a share.

Unfortunately, the stock never regained the $90 level, and instead lost 90% of its value over the next nine months. His options were now worthless and his hopes of retiring in his 50’s lost forever. Nortel went bankrupt in 2009 and his division was sold to competitor. Peter had the majority of his net worth in company stock and the loss truly decimated his investment portfolio and derailed his retirement plans.

It is often said that diversification is the only free lunch in investing. By being diversified, you can avoid the risk of having one stock wipe out your plans. And I should mention that this also applies to bonds. I met another investor who had $100,000 of Lehman Brothers bonds for their portfolio. As I recall, I believe the investor recovered only about 25 cents on the dollar after the Lehman bankruptcy in 2008.

Solution: Don’t let company stock – or any single stock – comprise more than 10% of your portfolio. Even better, avoid single stocks altogether and use ETFs or mutual funds. For bonds, I’d suggest keeping any single issuer to only 1-2% of your portfolio. The potential benefits of having a concentrated stock position are outweighed by the magnitude of losses if things go wrong.

2) Trying to Outsmart the Market. Luke considered himself a sophisticated investor and enjoyed reading and learning about investing. He had an MBA and felt that with his knowledge and a subscription to the Wall Street Journal, he should be focused on beating the market. He looked at his portfolio almost every day and would be very concerned if any of his funds were lagging the overall market. As a result, he wanted to trade frequently, to put his money into whatever sector, fund, or category was currently performing best.

Funds typically include the disclaimer that “past performance is no guarantee of future results”, and yet, so many investors are focused on picking funds based on their most recent past performance. In Luke’s case, his insistence on “hot funds” meant that he was often invested in sector funds. His performance over time was actually worse than the benchmarks, because in spite of all his research and knowledge, he was focused on looking backwards rather than forwards.

Solution: stay diversified and don’t chase hot funds. Typically, 65% to 80% of all active managers under perform their benchmark over five years, which means that your safest bet is to never bet on a manager’s skill but to bet on the house. Using index funds works, and adopting an index approach means you can focus on what really matters for accumulation: how much you save. Luke’s portfolio was relatively small, under $100,000. Ironically, investors with smaller accounts are often the ones who believe that they need to outsmart the market to be successful. When I worked with a client with over $100 million, he had no qualms about index funds whatsoever.

3) Timing the Market. Angelina retired in 2007, a year before the stock market slumped. In early 2009, the market was down nearly every day, sometimes losing 5% in a session. We had conversations previously with Angelina about market volatility and had implemented a diversified, balanced portfolio. On March 6, 2009, Angelina called and insisted that we exit all her equity positions. It was that very day that the S&P 500 Index put in its intra-day low of 666. In hindsight, she sold on the actual worst day possible. Luckily, we were able to convince her to buy the equities back by June, but by then, she had missed a 30% rally.

Market timing mistakes aren’t limited to selling at a low; you can also miss out when the market is doing well. Last year, while the market was up double digits, some investors had significant capital in cash, fearing a drop or hoping to profit from any temporary pullback. Those with large cash positions under performed those who were invested in a target allocation. Having looked at hundreds of investors’ performance, I have yet to see anyone who has improved their return through market timing, except from random luck. Trying to get in and out of the market gives you more opportunities to make mistakes.

Solution: Choose an appropriate asset allocation and stick with it. Invest monthly into a diversified portfolio, and don’t stop investing when the market is down. If you think you will wait until you get an “all-clear” signal, you’re going to miss out on gains like Angelina. Rebalancing annually creates a discipline to sell your winners and buy the losers, which is difficult to do otherwise!

Investing should be easy. People have the best intentions when they load up on company stock, invest in a hot fund, or try to time the market. The reality, however, is that the more complicated strategy you adopt, the more likely you will hurt rather than enhance your returns. Our goal is to help investors gain the knowledge, confidence, and discipline to recognize that your most likely path to success is to stick with a simple approach that is proven to work.

Want to read more? Check out Winning The Loser’s Game by Charles Ellis.

Should You Hedge Your Foreign Currency Exposure?

Posted On May 25, 2015 By Admin In Portfolio Management /

When you invest in foreign stocks or bonds, you’re really making two transactions. First, you have to exchange your dollars for the foreign currency and only then can you make the purchase of the investment. Over time, your return will consist of two parts: the change in the price of the investment and the change in the value of the currency. In 2014, foreign stocks – as measured by the MSCI EAFE Index – were up 6.4% in their local currency, but because of a strong dollar, the index was actually down by 4.5% in US dollar terms.

This nearly 11% disparity of returns has made for one of the fastest growing investment segments in 2015: currency-hedged Exchange Traded Funds. These new funds invest in a traditional international index, but then hedge the foreign currency, so US investors can receive a similar return to investors in the local currency. Obviously, a currency hedging strategy has worked well over the past year, but is it a good idea going forward?

As you might imagine, there is no free lunch with currency hedging. There are two important caveats for investors to understand. First, when you hedge, you are making a directional bet that the dollar will strengthen. If the dollar weakens instead, a hedged international fund will under perform a non-hedged fund, or even lose money. Hedging adds an additional element to the investment decision making process, which can increase the possibility of under performance. After all, the most appealing time to hedge will be after the currencies have already made a big move, but in many cases, that will also be too late!

Having foreign denominated investments can provide investors with diversification away from the US dollar. If the dollar were to decline, foreign denominated positions would rise. Having that currency diversification could help investors over time by potentially smoothing returns and providing a defensive element. If you hedge your foreign positions, a declining dollar would negatively impact both your domestic and foreign holdings, which means you may have actually increased your portfolio’s correlations and risk.

The second caveat is cost. Currency hedged funds have a higher expense ratio than regular ETFs, and those management costs do not even include the actual cost of purchasing the hedges. If currencies are relatively stable over a longer period, hedged products will likely lag non-hedged funds due to their higher expenses.

Given these two caveats, I have been reluctant to recommend currency hedged ETFs for long-term investors. Today, however, there are some reasons to believe that the US dollar’s strength may continue. If we look at central bank policy, the US Federal Reserve has been discussing when and under what conditions they will begin to raise interest rates. Compare this to Europe or Japan, where the central banks are looking to create new stimulus and quantitative easing programs. The expectation is that the money supply will increase in Europe and Japan, while the US money supply will be more stable. That’s bullish for the dollar for the near term.

We shouldn’t expect 2014’s nearly 11% difference between hedged and un-hedged indices to continue, but currency trends or cycles can last for several years. I will be talking with our investors to discuss hedging a portion of their international exposure, provided they can make those trades in an IRA. We prefer to make the trades in an IRA to avoid any capital gains on a sale today. Also, we consider the currency-hedged funds to be tactical rather than strategic, meaning that at some point in the future, we will probably want to trade back into the traditional, un-hedged index.

There are also currency hedged ETFs for Emerging Market stocks, but we recommend investors steer clear of those funds. The cost of hedging is tied to short-term interest rates in the foreign currency, so it’s very cheap to hedge Euros or Yen today, but fairly expensive to hedge emerging market currencies where interest rates may run 6-8% or more. And that explains why currency hedged Emerging Market funds are not showing the same out performance we see with currency hedged funds in developed markets, even though the dollar has strengthened in both cases.

Have questions on how to implement this in your portfolio? Please don’t hesitate to call me at 214-478-3398 or send me an email to scott@goodlifewealth.com for help!

Our Investment Process

Posted On April 1, 2015 By Scott Stratton, CFP(R), CFA In Portfolio Management / 1 Comment

An investment approach designed to support retirement income planning, tax considerations, and long-term decision-making.

Request an Introductory Conversation 👉 /appointment/
A brief introductory call to see if working together may be appropriate.

How We Think About Investing in Retirement

For retirees and pre-retirees, investing often serves a different purpose than it did during the accumulation years. Rather than focusing solely on growth, investment decisions are typically made in the context of income needs, taxes, time horizons, and long-term flexibility.

Our investment process is designed to support broader financial planning conversations — particularly retirement income planning and tax planning — rather than operate as a standalone strategy.

Our Investment Process in Practice

Step 1: Understand the Planning Context

Investment decisions begin with an understanding of your broader financial situation, including retirement timing, income needs, tax considerations, and existing accounts.

Step 2: Establish an Appropriate Investment Strategy

Based on the planning context, we develop an investment strategy aligned with time horizons, cash flow needs, and long-term objectives — rather than short-term market movements.

Step 3: Portfolio Construction

Portfolios are constructed using diversified investments intended to reflect the agreed-upon strategy, account types, and planning considerations.

Step 4: Ongoing Monitoring and Adjustment

As circumstances, markets, and planning needs evolve, portfolios are monitored and adjusted as part of an ongoing planning relationship.

How Investment Decisions Are Coordinated With Planning

Investment management does not exist in isolation. Portfolio structure influences how retirement income is generated and how taxes are experienced over time. For this reason, investment decisions are coordinated with retirement income planning and tax planning considerations whenever appropriate.

This integrated approach helps ensure that investment decisions are informed by the broader financial picture rather than disconnected objectives.

Retirement Income Planning → /retirement-income-planning/

Tax Planning → /tax-planning/

Who This Investment Approach May Be a Good Fit For

Our investment process is typically appropriate for individuals who:

Are approaching retirement or already retired
Want investment decisions informed by income and tax planning
Prefer an ongoing advisory relationship
Value a fiduciary, planning-centered approach

We work with retirees and pre-retirees nationwide through a virtual advisory relationship.

Next Step

If you are considering how investment management fits into your broader retirement and tax planning, an introductory conversation can help determine whether working together makes sense.

Request an Introductory Conversation 👉 /appointment/
No obligation. Designed for retirees and pre-retirees.

Growth Versus Value: An Inflection Point?

Posted On March 30, 2015 By Admin In Portfolio Management /

Over time, Value stocks outperform Growth stocks. There are a number of reasons why this has held true over the history of the market. Value stocks may include sectors which are currently out of favor and inexpensive. Investors, on the other hand, are sometimes willing to pay too much for a sensational growth story rather than a boring, blue chip company. Often, those great sounding stocks flame out rather than shooting higher as hoped. The result is that the long-term benefit of value strategies has persisted.

Although the “Value Anomaly” is a historical fact, it hasn’t worked in all periods, and we’re at such a point in time now. Growth has actually outperformed value over the past decade. Even though growth beat value in only 5 of the past 10 calendar years, the cumulative difference is notable. Over the past 10 years, the Russell 1000 Growth fund (IWF) has returned an annualized 9.18% versus 7.10% for the Russell 1000 Value (IWD). And so far this year, Growth (IWF) is up 5%, whereas Value (IWD) has gained only 0.63%.

The last time growth showed a marked divergence from value was the 90’s. And at that time, we saw the valuations of growth companies rise to unsustainable levels. This largely occurred in the tech sector, where for example, we saw Cicso trade for more than 200 times earnings, and become the most valuable company in the world in 2000. Eventually, growth corrected with the bursting of the tech bubble, and we saw value stocks return to favor. These are the cycles of the market, as inevitable as the seasons, although not as consistent, predictable, or rational!

I don’t think we’re in bubble territory for the market today, but some popular growth names have certainly started to become expensive and value is looking like a relative bargain. Looking at the top 10 stocks in the both indices, the growth stocks have an average PE of 27, versus 17 for the 10 largest value companies. Some of that difference is Facebook, #4 on the Growth list, with a PE of 75. However, the difference in valuation is across the board. Two of the largest value companies, Exxon Mobil and JPMorgan Chase have a PE of only 11.

So, what are the take-aways from the Growth/Value divergence?

Growth has outperformed value in recent years. This will not continue forever.
Our portfolios are diversified, owning both growth and value segments. We have a slight tilt towards value, which we will continue. When value returns to favor, this will benefit not only pure value funds, but will also likely help dividend strategies, low volatility ETFs, and fundamentally-weighted funds.
As the overall market becomes more expensive, I would expect to see that we will move from a unified market, where all stocks move up or down together, to a more segmented market, where stocks move more based on their valuation and fundamentals. Global macro-economics have been the primary driver of stock prices in recent years, but this should abate somewhat as the recovery continues.

We won’t know if we’ve reached an inflection point, where value will overtake growth, until well after the fact. Growth can’t outperform indefinitely, and as investors become more cautious, value stocks will start to look more and more attractive. That’s what we’re seeing in the market today and why we started to increase our value holdings in 2015.

Source of fund data: Morningstar, through 3/27/2015