THE FINALE: Evaluating Funds Part VI: What Else Is There?

Never forget these two axioms:

Money frees us, but its pursuit may enslave us.

It’s not how much you have at the end; it’s how much you could have made.

Let me first give all of you my profoundest apologies for my recent 4-5 month sabbatical. Secondly, let me explain why it happened. For the sake of confidentiality and anonymity, I won’t say what the specifics are, I was recently offered the chance at an amazing new opportunity and I pursued it. Thirdly, I got it! Fourthly, as hard as the decision was to make, I’m closing the blog down as I cannot in good conscience continue doing it at all, let alone well, with my new responsibilities in addition to my day job as  a physician.

So, here we go with big finale…

We discussed index funds at each of the market capitalization levels last time. There are over 9,000 mutual funds in the US alone and they intersect every single kind of stock grouping you can imagine and many others you cannot. 

So, there’s no point in trying to rummage through each and every fund out there. That’s exactly what other blogs, TV shows, and magazines (digital or virtual) are for, so feel free to peruse them at your leisure…but always be mindful of not just your money and what risks you may be pouring it into, but exactly what your purposes of said investment is.

Rather than dig through the nearly ten thousand funds, let’s talk about funds that are directed in a very easily identifiable way. 

Sector Funds 

Sector funds are ones that are comprised entirely of the stocks of companies in one particular

industry (eg, technology) or sector of the economy (eg, energy)—thus the name. If it’s a sector you know a lot about such as health care or pharmaceuticals and, as always, your risk tolerance is high enough, then consider it if you don’t believe there is anything lurking in the near future to tank the sector. If you find yourself saying/thinking, “I don’t know enough about any one sector to know what the pitfalls are or when a downturn might be coming up,” then DON’T INVEST IN SECTOR FUNDS!

To be more broad of a category, there are specialty funds under which all sector finds fit. In other words, all sector funds are specialty funds, but all specialty funds are not sector funds. (Damn Venn diagrams!) Some examples of specialty funds that aren’t necessarily sector funds (ie, sectors of the economy) include real estate or even a better example would be commodities (ie, a basic good—coffee beans, sugar, corn, gold, cotton, etc—used in commerce that is interchangeable with other goods of the same type; commodities are usually used as inputs in the production of other goods—coffee, candy, food/candy, jewelry, and clothes respectively for example).

The most important things to note for sector funds is being a more experienced investor of moderately high risk tolerance before you dive in AND as someone said long ago (ie, one paragraph ago), if you find yourself saying/thinking, “I don’t know enough about any one sector to know what the pitfalls are or when a downturn might be coming up,” then DON’T INVEST IN SECTOR (OR SPECIALTY) FUNDS!

Fixed Income Funds

These funds are ones that buy investment products with a fixed rate of return such as government funds and/or corporate bonds. The specific fund will tell you what it is comprised of and pays you dividends from their proceeds or upon you selling the fund at a higher value than you bought it at earlier or possibly both. Government bonds tend to be lower yield and thus cost you less in fees whereas corporate bonds often (but not always) yield more and consequently cost more in fees. Don’t chase returns without understanding how much your costs are. A higher yield fund could cost quite a bit and return you less than a lower yield fund with lower fees…so look before you leap! 

Equity Funds & Index Funds

You already know what these are (and shame on you if you don’t) if you’ve been reading the blog and paying attention while you’re reading. 

Equity funds are ones that invest in individual companies’ stocks. So this is where your small cap, mid cap, large cap, growth stock, and value stock funds (plus every combination thereof) are categorized under.

Index funds…well, if you don’t know what index funds are at this point, I can’t help you. Prior blog posts went over both indexes and index funds in detail. Read them again, people!

Moving on…

Balanced Funds

These funds invest in a mix of equities (eg, stocks) and fixed income securities (eg, bonds). So, the more stocks you have in a fund, the higher the possible yield/returns, but also the higher the risk. A fund with more bonds or other fixed income securities than stocks will generally yield lower returns, but carry lower risk of loss. So, again, the specific fund you choose is directly linked to your risk tolerance.

So…figure out your risk tolerance before you go shopping. It’s no different than doing some Internet research before you go shopping for a big ticket item nowadays. 

Happy hunting!

Fund of Funds 

Sarcastic Reader: What in the hell is this??

Dr. Scared: This is it! This is it!! This is how they screw you!!!

Dr. Unwise: This sounds..weird…fishy even…maybe

Dr. Spend It All: No can do, boss. Gotta get that new Maserati.

Physician Wealth Thyself: Guys, while it’s kind of sad that is our last little round table, I will not miss you…at…all.

Sarcastic Reader: Ouch, As the kids say, savage!

PWT: ANYWAY…

Fund of Funds are ones that, believe it or not, invest in mutual funds. And they can be of any type. So, the fund of funds can be comprised of all purely small cap funds, mid cap funds, large cap funds, growth stock funds, and value stock funds (plus every combination thereof)

Sarcastic Reader: So, let me get this straight…instead of owning pieces of stocks or owning pieces of funds that own pieces of stocks…you own pieces of funds that own pieces of funds that own pieces of a company’s stock…right?

PWT: Yes. Exactly. Nailed it!

Dr. Unwise: Whoa! It’s like a Russian nesting doll of investing…

Dr. Spend It All: Can’t go from 0 to 60 in 5.8 seconds in a Fund of Fund though, bro!

Dr. Scared: So, what’s the catch with these fund of funds thing?

PWT: The expense ratio (ie, the fee you are charged for owning the fund) in a fund of funds is usually higher (sometimes significantly higher) than that of a standard fund

Dr. Scared: So this is how they screw you…

PWT: Yeah. Possibly, depending on the expense ratio. Finally, you got one thing right. If that isn’t a sign to end this blog on, I don’t know what is.

I’d love to hear from any and all of you about your thoughts, so we can all learn from one another. 

This is it…

It feels odd to say this after such a short time (which doesn’t seem short at all behind the scenes), but this is truly the end.

Though the end of any venture is always bittersweet, I’d rather leave on a high note knowing I gave it my best than giving a half hearted effort for another 6-12 months and then ended it. So, I hope you all learned a lot and even enjoyed it along the way.  

Talk to you soon.

Until next time…in another place…in another way…farewell and best of luck to all of you…

Evaluating Funds Part V: The Philosophy of Funds

Never forget these two axioms:

Money frees us, but its pursuit may enslave us.

It’s not how much you have at the end; it’s how much you could have made.

Before we get into talking about non-index funds, let’s talk about what you’re going into before you do Consider this the look before the leap.

I’ve always maintained that if you have low risk tolerance, then put 90% of your investment dollars should be in a S&P 500 fund and 10% in short term bonds. (An alternative is always all of your investment in a S&P 500 fund. Sounds risky, right? Well, you’re betting on the future of the entire American economy—9% a year every year for over a century. It’s a pretty good bet and the best and still safest one that is commercially available.) If you have a slightly higher risk tolerance, then put 90-100% of your investments in a combination of a S&P 500 fund, mid cap fund, and a small cap fund and 0-10% in short term bonds. Add slightly more risk and add in blue chip multibillion dollar Dividend Champions to whatever your comfort level/risk tolerance is—5, 10, 20, 25%, or a higher percent of your entire investment portfolio. (Something along the lines of 25% of all your investment dollars in Dividend Champions with all dividends reinvested back into each stock, 25% in an S&P 500 fund, 25% in a md cap fund, and 25% in a small cap fund would be be a moderate risk tolerance portfolio that can garner good returns and would be appropriately aggressive enough for a young investor [ie, <40 years old}.)

If you do any of the above and slowly add bonds into your investment portfolio as you age, you’ll do perfectly well.

Just start early and steadily invest weekly, biweekly, or monthly.  

The rest will take care of itself.

It always has in the past and despite short term market turmoil, there is no reason to believe it will not in the future as well.

Realize also that when you are told to increase the amount in one type of asset rather another, you don’t have to put in more money than you usually do. You just have to divert more money into the desired asset class than any other. This is where once again dividends are beautiful as they allow for ongoing purchases of stocks or funds without any extra from you. You can divert money into another asset class while the dividends keep rolling in and act as a way to increase your stake in these dividend producing assets, WIth dividends, you get to increase some assets while not necessarily losing other assets.

So where does that leave you in terms of investing?

It’s a matter of what you want in in your portfolio and what you are invested in allowing you to sleep peacefully at night. If you have doubts, invest as detailed above and be happy. However…if you want to try something beyond index funds (perhaps first as a small part of your investment portfolio and then perhaps an increasing amount over the years or decades as you feel comfortable with it and it continues to perform well), then let’s talk about other funds as investment option…next time.

I’d love to hear from any and all of you about your thoughts, so we can all learn from one another.

Please spread the word about this blog to your friends (real and virtual), family, and colleagues. Talk to you soon.

Until next time…

Evaluating Funds Part IV: The Tiniest of The Tiny

Never forget these two axioms:

Money frees us, but its pursuit may enslave us.

It’s not how much you have at the end; it’s how much you could have made.

Micro caps and Nano caps are the focus of this post.

These are the smallest investable companies available—any smaller and you’d be investing in a small business to help them start up, stay open (hopefully not) , or grow (hopefully) as an angel investor possibly.

I don’t advise anyone delve into this until they have not only planned out their critical mass of index funds, but also built it up to a significant amount (ie, a million dollars or greater). If it takes ten years (or even longer) to build that first (yes, first—if it’s the only million by the time you retire, you’ve got serious problems) million dollars with index funds, then fine—you’re just not ready financially or experience wise to invest in this space.

If you thought the small caps could suffer significantly before the rest of the economy, the micro caps and nano caps not only do that, but may not even survive a major downturn in the economy given their tiny size and inability to raise capital and/or finance debt when it is needed most. So buyer beware…

Nano caps do not have any long term reliable funds that you can invest in to capture their growth, so if you’re investing in nano caps, you’re doing it company by company on your own or possibly even worse via a new fund with no track record.

DO YOUR HOMEWORK BEFORE YOU LEAP INTO NANO CAPS!!!

So on to the micro caps then…

There are four US based micro cap ETF’s with a track record listed in order of size (ie, assets under management):

  1. iShares Micro-Cap ETF (IWC) (begun 8/17/05) holds just over 1,300 stocks each with an average market capitalization just below $500 million. It seeks to track the Russell Microcap Index (which excludes the 2,000 largest [by virtue of their respective market capitalizations] US based publicly traded companies). The fund’s expense ratio is 0.60%. It has over a billion dollars in assets under management.This is the grandaddy of the micro cap ETFs and the gold standard.
  2. First Trust Dow Jones Select MicroCap ETF (FDM) which launched in 9/30/05 tracks the Dow Jones Select Microcap Index which is limited to just stocks listed on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). The ETF has just over 500 stocks with over $100 million in assets under management and an expense ratio of 0.60%.
  3. Guggenheim WIlshire Micro-Cap ETF (WMCR)* which launched on 9/21/06 tracks the WIlshire Micro-Cap Index. It holds over 800 stocks with an average market capitalization of under $200 million which is the smallest average market cap of these four ETFs, It’s expense ratio is 0.59% The assets under management for this fund is <$100 million.
  4. PowerShares Zacks Micro Cap Portfolio ETF (PZI)* which launched on 8/18/05 holds just over 400 stocks, eah with an average market capitalization of just over $400 million. It is the smallest of the four ETFs at <$50 million. The fund’s expense ratio is 0.50%.

*Of note, the last two ETfs are now under the management of investment firm Invesco.

Keep in mind, you’re under zero obligation to follow through with any of these investments. If you have serious reservations or doubts or anxiety about investing in such small companies that you’ve never heard of and likely know nothing about which can get crushed with any big downturn in the economy, don’t get FOMO (ie, fear of missing out) because you’re not.

Never forget this: Some money isn’t worth making.

See you next time as we start in on evaluating funds of other kinds.

I’d love to hear from any and all of you about your thoughts, so we can all learn from one another.

Please spread the word about this blog to your friends (real and virtual), family, and colleagues. Talk to you soon.

Until next time…

Evaluating Funds Part 3: No Small Returns With Small Caps

Never forget these two axioms:

Money frees us, but its pursuit may enslave us.

It’s not how much you have at the end; it’s how much you could have made.

The hunt for better/higher returns while still index investing continues apace (NIce SAT word, nerd!). Since we had already discussed S&P 500 (ie. large cap) index investing and mid cap index investing in earlier posts, we now can turn our attention and focus on to the last group (more or less…more on that later) of companies for index investing.

Small cap index investing here we come…

The same principle regarding mid cap index  funds remains true for small cap index funds. Despite the fear of being called an egoist for quoting myself, here is what I said in the last post “Think of the smaller companies out there that will eventually grow bigger and may become large caps over time. Who wouldn’t want to capture the (possibly) double digit growth year after year of such companies? And rather than hunt for these companies yourself spending dozens to hundreds of hours of research, there’s a far more efficient (both in time and cost—material and opportunity) way to steer some of this growth into your long term portfolio.”

Before we delve into the world of small caps, it should be noted what is unique about small caps compared to mid caps and large caps. Here is the best summary I could find of both the risks and rewards embedded in small cap companies and their associated funds:

Small caps are unique in that they are highly leveraged to the economy. These companies have smaller balance sheets and are more exposed to the economic cycle. During recessions, many may go bankrupt. This is in contrast to mid-cap and large-cap companies that have more established operations and reserves to get through and thrive during turbulent times.

For these reasons, small caps are considered a leading indicator for the economy. When traders become enthused about prospects for economic growth, they move into small caps. When they are worried about a slowdown, they start to sell small caps first.”

So, assess and then re-assess your risk tolerance before you plunge in.

But, if you’re ready for a higher risk/higher reward investment.

So let’s dig into the small cap index funds that are available:

  1. Vanguard Small Cap ETF (VB) traded at $143.73 as of the end of 1/24/19. The ten year return has been 13.62% annually on average. (This translates to $10,000 being invested in 2008 growing to $35,713.03 today.) There is a dividend (always greatly appreciated) of 1.77%.The expense ratio is a highly favorable 0.05% (meaning $5 per $10,000 invested) just like the mid cap funds. Of note, there is a no minimum initial investment to be invested in this fund.
  2. Vanguard Small Cap Index Fund Admiral Shares (VSMAX) traded at $68.87 as of the end of 1/24/19. The ten year return has been 13.57% annually on average. (This translates to $10,000 being invested in 2008 growing to $35,712.57 today.) There is a dividend (still and always greatly appreciated) of 1.8%.The expense ratio is also a highly favorable 0.05% (meaning $5 per $10,000 invested). Of note, this fund requires a $3,000 minimum initial investment after which any amount of  money can be invested in the fund.
  3. iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) traded at $147.34 as of the end of 1/25/19. The ten year return has been 11.99% annually on average. (This translates to $10,000 being invested in 2008 growing to $39,887.47 today.) There is a dividend (still and always greatly appreciated) of 1.40%.The expense ratio is 0.19% (meaning only $19 per $10,000 invested, but it is 400% more expensive than the Vanguard funds). There is no minimum initial investment for this fund.
  4. Vanguard Russell 2000 ETF (VTWO) traded at $118.33 as of the end of 1/25/19. The return has been 10.30% annually on average since 9/20/10 (the inception date of the fund), but only 4.44% over the past five years. (This translates to $10,000 being invested on 9/20/10 growing to $22,531.62 today.) There is a dividend (still and always greatly appreciated) of 1.44%.The expense ratio is 0.15% (meaning only $15 per $10,000 invested, but it is 300% more expensive than the other Vanguard funds). There is no minimum initial investment for this fund.
  5. SPDR S&P 600 Small Cap ETF (SLY)  traded at $65.54 as of the end of 1/25/19. The ten year return has been 14.93% annually on average. (This translates to $10,000 being invested ten years ago growing to $40,210.00 today.) There is a dividend (always greatly appreciated) of 1.43%.The expense ratio is 0.15% (meaning only $15 per $10,000 invested, but it is 300% more expensive than the Vanguard funds). There is no minimum initial investment for this fund.

Once again for the sake of comparison:

“When comparing the above returns to what the S&P 500 would have done by itself, keep in mind that the average total return for the S&P 500 dating from January 2008-December 2018 was 7.185%. (This improves dramatically to 12.603% if you started putting the money at the end of 2008 in December of that year after the financial crisis had hit fully and the market had already sunk significantly with more to come until it hit bottom in March 2009.)”  

Sarcastic Reader: Man, this guy just can’t stop quoting himself like he’s Oscar Wilde or something. What an egoist!

So there’s quite a few choices as you can see. The first two Vanguard funds (VB, VSMAX) are the cheapest ad have performed well.

IWM has performed as well as these Vanguard funds, but is four times as expensive for that same performance. Same performance is the minimum requisite of an index fund, but it shouldn’t be much more expensive than others for that same performance.

So..nah for IWM.

The Vanguard Russell 2000 ETF is not an option as it has performed poorly regardless of cost—which, by the way, is still three times more than the VB or VSMAX thus making it a two time loser.

Sorry, but bye bye, Vanguard Russell 2000 ETF.

That leaves SLY which is still three times more expensive, but has performed the best of all of these small cap funds by over one percent over the past ten years.

So it appears we have VB/VSMAX versus SLY for your best small cap index fund.

Now, we get down to splitting hairs.

Assume a few things first:

You don’t have an array of Vanguard or SPDR funds. If you do, then stop and just go with the fund that matches up with what you already have.

There is no exact right answer here, but more of a way to think about what you’re seeking in an investment. If you’re worried about the future performance of the any of the funds more than anything else, then pick the cheapest fund(s)—VB/VSMAX. This lets you control the only thing you can (the fees) with the realization of what you cannot—the big bad market.

If you’re confident that you will ALWAYS outperform the cheaper funds, then go for the gusto. Personally, I like the security of cheaper funds (control what you can control to your advantage) rather than hoping everything keeps coming up roses…because you know it won’t—there will be down years. You just don’t know when. ALWAYS is rarely a good option both on med school and Board exams; the same holds true for the market.

Let’s hold here for now.

I’d love to hear from any and all of you about your thoughts, so we can all learn from one another.

Please spread the word about this blog to your friends (real and virtual), family, and colleagues. Talk to you soon.

Until next time…

Evaluating Funds Part II: Nothing Middling About Mid Caps

Never forget these two axioms:

Money frees us, but its pursuit may enslave us.

It’s not how much you have at the end; it’s how much you could have made.


The last time we spoke about funds, we went over the options for index funds for the S&P 500. I then teased the possibility of more than just the bluest of blue chips and the largest of the large caps to help juice the total returns of your investment portfolio.

So here we go…

Think of the smaller companies out there that will eventually grow bigger and may become large caps over time. Who wouldn’t want to capture the (possibly) double digit growth year after year of such companies? And rather than hunt for these companies yourself spending dozens to hundreds of hours of research, there’s a far more efficient (both in time and cost—material and opportunity) way to steer some of this growth into your long term portfolio.

Welcome to mid cap index funds…

Believe it or not, there are funds that track the vast array of companies in the US that range from $2 billion to $10 billion in value. That sounds like a stratospherically high value for a company,so surely you would have heard of these companies. But, in reality, unless you follow the market closely, you would not have. Red Hat, Autodesk, Amphenol, ONEOK Inc, and Roper Technologies are some of the better known mid cap companies If you haven’t heard of these, there’s no chance you would have hears of the lesser known mid cap companies.

There is/was virtually an industry standard of mid cap index funds—-the highly regarded

Vanguard Mid-Cap Index Fund Investor Shares (VIMSX) which is apparently so highly regarded that Vanguard closed the fund to new investors due to the massive influx of capital flowing into it (or crazy fat stacks of cash as the kids call it). Therefore, we must now focus on other mid cap index funds.

Here they are:

  1. Vanguard Mid Cap Index Fund Admiral Shares (VIMAX) Vanguard Mid CAp ETF (VO) traded at $182.91 as of the end of 1/22/19. The ten year return has been 13.87% annually on average. (This translates to $10,000 being invested in 2008 growing to $36,640.22 today.) There is a dividend (always greatly appreciated) of 1.8%.The expense ratio is a highly favorable 0.05% (meaning $5 per $10,000 invested). Of note, there is a $3,000 minimum initial investment after which any amount of  money can be invested in the fund.
  2. Vanguard Mid Cap ETF (VO) traded at $147.69 as of the end of 1/22/19. The ten year return has been 13.87% annually on average. (This translates to $10,000 being invested in 2008 growing to $36,639.71 today.) There is a dividend (always greatly appreciated) of 1.84%.The expense ratio is a highly favorable 0.05% (meaning $5 per $10,000 invested). Of note, there is no minimum initial investment for this fund.

And that’s about it…

Yes, there are other mid cap index funds.

No, I cannot recommend them.

The top few non-Vanguard mid cap index funds are (expense ratios in parentheses) are the Dreyfus Mid Cap Index Fund (0.50%), the Fidelity Spartan Mid Cap Index Fund Investor Class (0.22%), and the Columbia Mid Cap Index Fund Class A (.0.45%). Feel free to click the links and see the specifics of each of these funds.

But, realize this before you take the plunge into any of these funds, you’re paying 400%-1,000% more for the same product with the hopes of the same returns. Would you pay four times as much for the same house? Would you spend ten times as much for the same car?

If not, then why are spending so much more on your index fund? As stated before (and likely many more times in the future), equities are the only item where people often spend far more than they need to—often willingly and stubbornly refusing to change to something cheaper as if recognizing a mistake and correcting it is a sin rather than a virtue like we would be urged (and even celebrated for) to do at work.

Bizarre, but true…

When comparing the above returns to what the S&P 500 would have done by itself, keep in mind that the average total return for the S&P 500 dating from January 2008-December 2018 was 7.185%. (This improves dramatically to 12.603% if you started putting the money at the end of 2008 in December of that year after the financial crisis had hit fully and the market had already sunk significantly with more to come until it hit bottom in March 2009.)  

I’d love to hear from any and all of you about your thoughts, so we can all learn from one another.

Please spread the word about this blog to your friends (real and virtual), family, and colleagues. Talk to you soon.

Until next time…

Evaluating Stocks Part VII: Become An Aristocrat

Never forget these two axioms:

Money frees us, but its pursuit may enslave us.

It’s not how much you have at the end; it’s how much you could have made.

In response to the last post or two, people wanted to see the math behind “The Magic of Dividend Investing”, so let me talk to you in two parts about that.

The first is the one we will focus on for today.

Dividend Aristocrat Investing (remember what they are?—companies who have increased their dividends for 25-49 consecutive years, but are only in the S&P 500 as opposed to Dividend Champions who have the same dividend history as Dividend Aristocrats, but are not necessarily in the S&P 500—so there are 50 Dividend Aristocrats and 115 DIvidend Champions for 2018)     has two things of note from a total return standpoint.

The first is that the total return for Dividend Aristocrat investing is superior to the total returns for the S&P 500 (with all dividends reinvested into the companies that generated the dividends in the first place) in the past 5, 10, 15, and even 20 years.

Here are the average annual total returns as of September 2016:

Index Total return – 2016 through Sept. 2 Average total return – 3 years Average total return – 5 years Average total return – 10 years Average total return – 15 years Average total return – 20 years
S&P Dividend Aristocrats 14.1% 14.7% 17.9% 10.7% 10.1% 11.2%
S&P 500 8.3% 12.5% 15.6% 7.5% 6.6% 8.2%
Source: FactSet

If you don’t believe three percent better returns average over two decades isn’t terribly impressive, consider this article (which is a great read from 2016 which is also where the above chart was “borrowed”—pay attention to the graphs showing you the difference in the returns over time for $10,000 investment and imagine that that’s only for a one time $10,000 investment and not for yearly investment as any of you would be doing—right? Right?!?) as well as the following thought experiment.

Imagine getting 3% higher salary every year for twenty years than you usually would for DOING THE EXACT SAME WORK! Tell me that isn’t a significant return then. If you’re thinking that 3% a year more in your investments is a pittance, then you should gladly turn down the 3% bump up in pay because it won’t amount to anything. You can’t say the former and then argue against the latter.

One problem however…this leaves you with investing up to 50 different companies however. Several approaches can tackle this problem.

  1. Invest in each company with two percent of your total investment in stocks (not how much your total overall investment in all equities is) each year CON: It’s complex and requires many transactions with each one creating a fee each time thus reducing your total returns over time. Also, you have to keep paying attention to when a company drops off the list (pretty big news in the investing world) and when a new one gets added on. PRO: You get all the companies’ dividends and stock price appreciation the whole time you’re investing in them without fail.
  2. Invest in your favorite companies within the 50 Dividend Aristocrats by feel, by analysis, by lowest PE ratio, by the advice of your financial advisor, etc. CON: You don’t get all the benefits of dividends and stock price appreciation of all the companies, just the ones you’re invested in. Your total returns may be worse than the overall Dividend Aristocrats as your selections may underperform the others. This may cause you to drop these and pick up others…which can then underperform the following year. And so on and so forth… PRO: Your selections could outperform the overall Dividend Aristocrats. Even underperforming the overall Dividend Aristocrats, these selections may have total returns that still are greater than the S&P 500 which is, after all, the whole goal here. A small basket of stocks (ten perhaps) rather than 50 of them will be a lot less to manage, follow, and cost less in transactions.   
  3. There is an ETF that does all the work for you by investing in all of the Dividend Aristocrats (though it modifies the dividend aristocrat definition, reducing the minimum standard to 20 years), tracks them, pulls out of a company if it falls off the Dividend Aristocrat list, and invests in a new one if it joins the list. CON: There is an expense ratio connected to it and the returns are lower than doing all 50 stocks yourself though its total return may still exceed S&P 500. PRO: All the work is done for you for a small expense ratio (0.35%) with far less transaction costs than the DIY approach to Dividend Aristocrat investing. Since the ETF began in 2006, it has nearly tripled in value ( a return of over (5 a year if you remember the rule of 114—and if you don’t, you’re a jerk since I posted about this in the past) and then add in the dividends (2.48%) to really juice the returns.  
  4. You could do a hybrid of the above. 50 stocks is a lot to own, but not necessarily over 30-50 years of investing. Buy one a week and set up a DRIP and then you have all of them in a year and then add to them as you see fit/as your budget allows. The same could be done monthly thus allowing you to get all fifty within just over four years. Again, the beauty here is that once you’re in, the dividends start rolling in and increase your your stake in said companies increasing your next set of dividends in a glorious upward spiral of wealth.
  5. If you want no fuss no muss, then the ETF is the way to go. If you enjoy the challenge of owning a large panel of stocks for even a smaller basket, then go for it.

I’d love to hear from any and all of you about your thoughts, so we can all learn from one another.

Please spread the word about this blog to your friends (real and virtual), family, and colleagues. Talk to you soon.

Until next time…

Portfolio Building Part VB: Examples of What We’re Talking About

Never forget these two axioms:

Money frees us, but its pursuit may enslave us.

It’s not how much you have at the end; it’s how much you could have made.

Portfolio Building, Part VB

In the last post, we discussed a reasonable (perhaps even great) investing strategy with little (no?)  day-to-day effort on your part.

As a reminder, here is what was proposed:

25% S&P 500 Index Fund

25% Mid cap Fund

25% Small Cap Fund

25% Stocks

Let’s leave the stock behind for now and talk specifics on the funds.

As I’ve said many other times in other places, low fees is the key to outsized gains long term for index funds since they are more passive investing where they are matching (or, at least, attempting to match) the index they are designed to match.

Realize that there are several indexes that funds can follow at each level of market capitalization.

The S&P 500 and NASDAQ Composite Index are the two best known large cap indexes that are tracked. Another large cap index is the Russell 1000 (which is the compilation of the 1,000 largest publicly traded companies in the US).

The mid cap indexes are the  S&P Mid-Cap 400, the Russell Midcap Index, and the Wilshire US Mid-Cap Index.

The best known small cap indexes are the Russell 2000 Index and the S&P 600.

Cheapest Index Funds

S&P 500 Index Funds:

Vanguard 500 Index Fund Investor Shares

Symbol:  VFINX

Net Expense Ratio:  0.14%

Minimum Initial Investment:  $3,000

But if you can reach the initial investment requirement of $10,000 for their “Admiral” share class (symbol: VFIAX), you can get the cheapest available S&P 500 index fund with an expense ratio of 0.05% which translates into a $5 fee for every $10,000 invested.

Schwab S&P 500 Index (SWPPX): The expense ratio is 0.09%, or $9 for every $10,000 invested. The minimum initial investment is $100.

There are many, many large cap index funds that do not track the S&P 500 index, but rather other large cap indexes such as the Russell 1000, so feel free to look for them if you would prefer those rather than the ones that track the S&P 500.

Mid cap Index Funds:

Northern Mid Cap Index (NOMIX):

The expense ratio is 0.15%, or $15 for every $10,000 invested, and the minimum initial investment is $2,500.

Vanguard Mid Cap Index (VIMSX):

The expense ratio is 0.20%, or $20 for every $10,000 invested, and the minimum initial investment is $3,000.

Small Cap Index Funds:

SPDR S&P 600 Small Cap ETF (SLY):

The expense ratio is 0.15%, or $15 for every $10,000 invested.

Vanguard Russell 2000 ETF (VTWO):

The expense ratio is 0.15%, or $15 for every $10,000 invested.

Vanguard Small-Cap Index Fund Investor Shares (NAESX):

The expense ratio is 0.17%, or $17 for every $10,000 invested with a minimum initial investment of $3,000.

However you can pony up the minimum initial investment of $10,000, you too can be invested in the Vanguard Small-Cap Index Fund Admiral Shares (VSMAX) which charges a microscopic expense ratio of 0.05% or only a $5 fee for $10,000 invested.

How do they do it? Vanguard does it again!!

iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM):

The expense ratio is 0.20%, or $20 for every $10,000 invested.

Northern Small Cap Index (NSIDX):

The expense ratio is 0.15%, or $15 for every $10,000 invested, and the minimum initial investment is $2,500.

Schwab Small Cap Index (SWSSX):

The expense ratio is 0.17%, or $17 for every $10,000 invested, and the minimum initial investment is $100.

And for those of you who want to look beyond the US borders…

International Stock Index Funds:

Vanguard Total International Stock Index (VGTSX):

The expense ratio is 0.19%, or $19 for every $10,000 invested, and the minimum initial investment is $3,000.

Schwab International Index Fund (SWISX):

The expense ratio is 0.19%, or $19 for every $10,000 invested, and the minimum initial investment is $100.

Let’s discuss two other types of funds that are less commonly invested in, but may be of interest to some, especially if you’re not going to invest in individual stocks and have a 25% void to fill (rather than making your S&P 500 fund, mid cap fund, and small cap fund 33% each which is a completely reasonable option).

You have never heard of micro cap companies/funds (if you don’t read all my posts—shame on you, reader—or have a faulty memory), but as hinted at they are smaller than small cap companies/funds.

A Quick review:

Mega caps>$200-$300 billion in market capitalization (remember that?) (it’s arguable on the cutoff especially since it’s a newer term that holds no real value in terms of funds, etc being set up to follow just these companies since there is no significant growth in these companies given how big they already are)

Large caps>$10 billion

Mid caps=$2 billion-$10 billion

Small caps=$300 ($500) million-$2 billion

Micro caps=$50 million-$300 million (or $500 million depending on who you ask/use as a resource)

Nano caps<$50 million

There are no true micro cap indexes as the two best known (the Russell Micro Cap Index and the Dow Jones Wilshire US Micro Cap Index) also include small cap companies in them thus skewing what the performance of the micro cap market actually is which makes it difficult or even impossible to see how your micro cap fund is doing versus all micro cap companies en toto.

And just forget the tracking of nano caps.

Micro Cap Index Funds:

For a relative unknown group of companies, there are dozens upon dozens of choices in the micro cap index fund world. So, good luck in your search at this market capitalization level of funds since it’s likely you may not know any of the component companies in these funds.

Bond Index Funds*:

Vanguard Total Bond Index (VBMFX):

The expense ratio is 0.16%, or $16 for every $10,000 invested, and the minimum initial investment is $3,000.

Northern Bond Index (NOBOX):

The expense ratio is 0.16%, or $16 for every $10,000 invested, and the minimum initial investment is $2,500.

*I loathe bond index funds as mentioned earlier as they combine the downside of low returns of bonds with the relative higher risk of mutual funds. But for the sake of completeness, the above are some inexpensive bond funds.

Blech!

As you can see, there are quite a few Vanguard funds here which is not surprising as they made their name and fortune on low cost index funds as others ridiculed them for it. Vanguard got the last laugh as it is now the largest fund family in the world with over a TRILLION dollars invested with them (AKA assets under management AKA AUM).

Certainly, there is no reason to invest in only the Vanguard funds alone as they are not always the cheapest as you can see from the above listings, but for the sake of convenience, Vanguard is as close as you can get to a one stop shop for all you low cost index fund shopping needs. Is that slightly increased cost on 1-2 funds worth less hassle than a few funds under Vanguard and then one under another fund family and yet one more under a third fund family? Only you can answer that question for yourself.

Well, that should about do it for this post.

I’d love to hear from any and all of you about your thoughts, so we can all learn from one another.

Please spread the word about this blog to your friends (real and virtual), family, and colleagues. Talk to you soon.

Until next time…

Brick Upon Brick Redux

Never forget these two axioms:

 

Money frees us, but its pursuit may enslave us.

 

It’s not how much you have at the end; it’s how much you could have made.

 

Portfolio Building, Part V: Brick Upon Brick

After significant deliberation, I decided to re-post this from weeks ago with some key additions to the post to better explain the caveats and even pitfalls with certain aspects of portfolio building.

 My apologies for not thinking this through fully to have it in the first time, but I hope the additions are worth your time the second time around or for new guests, consider this the Greatest Post in Investing Blog History.

So here we go (again)… 

We talked about various fund only portfolios, but not one with stocks mixed in which is a good way to help increase your returns above what the S&P 500 as long as you understand there is at least a commensurate (nice SAT word, nerd!) increase in risk if not more.

An easy way to set up a retirement portfolio is to do the following:

25% S&P 500 Index Fund

25% Mid cap Fund

25% Small Cap Fund

25% Stocks

There it is.

That’s it.

That’s all there it is to do to retire on Easy Street.

That simple.

Well, I guess I should close down the blog now.

 

What?

Wait, you want to know more?

OK then.

Let’s get started.

Let me introduce you to the brilliant David Fish  (RIP to the recently departed King of Dividend Investing) who spent the past decade plus compiling publicly traded companies who kept increasing the dividend yearly for a string of consecutive years while you were learning about the difference between Golgi apparati and mitochondria and the finer points of the brachial plexus. Fish has categorized these companies that have increased their dividends to their shareholders year after year by the number of years that the dividend increases have taken place.

Dividend Challengers: the last consecutive 5-9 years

Dividend Contenders: the last consecutive 10-24 years

Dividend Champions: the last consecutive 25+ years

Then, to add to the confusion, there’s another overlapping category:

Dividend Aristocrats: the last consecutive 25+ years

SR: Umm…that’s the same thing there, Captain.

To explain, the Standard and Poor’s (remember them?) put together the Dividend Aristocrat Index with the principal difference between the David Fish’s Dividend Champions and the S&P’s DIvidend Aristocrats is the latter, not surprisingly, only contains companies in the S&P 500..

SR: The fix is in…

Dr. Scared: This is it!! This is how they screw you!!

PWT: Uuh..yeah..so anyway…

…whereas the Dividend Champions are any publicly traded companies on any index that fulfill the criteria as stated above (ie, increasing their dividend each consecutive for 25 years or greater). Therefore with this difference, there is a sizable difference between the Champions (115) and Aristocrats (53).

This “CCC” list is updated at the end of each month  by David Fish to ensure if a company has not increased their dividend in consecutive years or, even better, if a company has increased its dividend in enough consecutive years to be listed in any of the above categories.

To be able to not just maintain the same dividend, but actually increase it year after year, especially after a quarter of a century or even longer is beyond remarkable, In fact, it’s stunning when you think about it. These companies would have not just survived, but actually thrived, in all sorts of conditions including recessions, wars, new competitors, changing technology, etc.

Let’s take a look at the dividend aristocrats in particular.

These 53 are large companies (multi-billion dollars in market capitalization) that have survived and even thrived through all the gyrations of the market and nation since their respective inceptions. These companies have few opportunities for significant growth because of how massive they are already, but make you lots of money in the long term even if their share price barely budge over the years. (One way to think of it is like this: ideally, the company whose stock you own keeps jacking up their dividend year after year with the stock price barely moving     allowing you to buy more and more stock, and then three months before you retire it triples in value. This would be epically awesome AKA The Unattainable Dream.)

As noted before, the beauty of dividend investing is getting paid to buy a company’s stock and then be patient to continue to get paid during which time the more stock you buy, the more dividend it generates thus leading to more cash to buy even more stock leading to an upward spiral of stock/dividend/cash which is a beautiful thing to behold.

Here is an example of ten Dividend Champions along with the number of consecutive years that dividends were raised (and placed in descending order of those number of years) :

3M–59

Coca-Cola–55

Johnson & Johnson–55

Colgate Palmolive–54

*Altria (Tobacco company; formerly Phillip Morris)–48

McDonald’s–42

RLI (Insurance Company)–42

Clorox–40

ExxonMobil–35

AT&T–34

*Altria is the one company above that is not in the S&P 500 thus making this a list of DIvidend Champions, not Aristocrats, to be technically correct.

It’s a pretty well diversified group that virtually every American purchases from at one point or another throughout any given year. If most or all of these companies go down, then you don’t have a portfolio problem, you have a national/global economic crisis (see 2008-2009).

So, in a portfolio sense, it would break down as the following:

25% S&P 500 Index Fund

25% Mid cap Fund

25% Small Cap Fund

25% Stocks with each of the ten above stocks receiving 2.5% each (also make sure all dividends in these stocks and even the funds above are set up to automatically be reinvested back into whatever stock or fund they came from)

Just make sure you regularly invest into the above four categories or thirteen discrete securities consistently (ie, monthly or even more frequently, not any less frequently than monthly however—more on the mechanics and logistics of stock/fund purchasing in a later post).

Then just sit back and watch the returns roll in.

Several caveats:

1,) Realize that the above percentages (25% for each category with 2.5% of each stock) is how it will start, but not likely how it will be in 2, 5, 10, or a greater number of years. Stocks and funds will fluctuate and will also generate dividends in varying amounts at varying times which should then be purchasing those same stocks and funds at varying prices.WIth differences like that, it’s inevitable that some equities will race ahead of others over years to decades.

2.) This inequity in your equities (HA! I’m here all week folks!) may be perfectly fine and isn’t dangerous or problematic in of its own though some people rebalance their investments by shifting how much they pay into each equity to keep them the same as much  as possible (OCD much?). Rebalancing these equities will take constant monitoring and not an insignificant amount of calculating/effort to do so which is totally contrary to what any of us would like and certainly not the whole point of the “build it and feed it and otherwise leave it alone” system of retirement investing.

The one thing to note as equities separate out from one another is to realize that the inequity is blunted by the fact that the most expensive ones will wind up gaining fewer and fewer shares with each purchase due to their share prices relative to the other cheaper ones.

3.) Do NOT fall into the trap of changing your equal contribution towards the best performing equities and away from others. The point of having equal contributions is to have your savings spread out throughout the US or even global economy in case of fluctuations and especially in case of downturns. What is well performing one quarter or year or even decade may stall or even recede suddenly at the exact time where you keep putting in more and more money into that very equity. Don’t let market fluctuations in the short term distract you from a solid-great plan that will thrive over 25-35 years, not 25-35  days or even 25-35 months.

4.) A good argument against the above portfolio is that owning shares of mega cap companies in addition to a S&P 500 fund is that they are both representative of large cap companies which is now 50% of the portfolio with mid caps and small caps at 25% each. In addition, some people are just not comfortable with owning stocks of individual companies which I think is personally fine. Do what you’re comfortable with and not what you think you should be doing. None of this is worth having reflux or insomnia over. That is an absolute certitude.     

Before we finish, it’s time for a little shouting however.

THE DIVIDEND CHAMPIONS I CHOSE ARE PURELY ARBITRARY OTHER THAN BEING WELL KNOWN COMPANIES AND DO NOT AT ALL REFLECT MY CHOICES OF WHAT A GOOD INVESTMENT CONSTITUTE. DO NOT THINK IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM THAT I AM PROMOTING ANY ONE OF THESE COMPANIES FOR ANY PERSON TO BUY.

END OF YELLING DISCLAIMER…

Thanks for tolerating my CYA tirade!

We will discuss evaluating individual stocks in a future post however.

I’d love to hear from any and all of you about your thoughts, so we can all learn from one another.

Please spread the word about this blog to your friends (real and virtual), family, and colleagues. Talk to you soon.

Until next time…

Beyond The Foundation, Beyond The Nation

Never forget these two axioms:

Money frees us, but its pursuit may enslave us.

It’s not how much you have at the end; it’s how much you could have made.

Portfolio Building, Part IV B

I said posting would be sparse, but the last few weeks was the reductio ad absurdum of that notion and for that I  am profoundly sorry.

Lot of things happened—some good, some bad—in the interval.

In short, life happened.

Once again, I’m truly sorry.

Anyway…

Let’s pick up where we left off.

You’ve decided you’ve wanted to have a small portion of your retirement portfolio invested in international funds.

One point before we move on:

Given how well diversified and well covered the US would be by a trio of S&P 500 fund, mid cap fund, and small cap fund, your international investing should be comprised only of countries that are based out of the US as to not overlap investments of the US based trio with your “international” fund (which if you’re not careful could be a “global fund” where 50% of the fund is actually invested in US companies all over again).

So now what?

Here are a few options for international investing:

1.) Pick what is known as “ex US” fund (which means any country “ex”cept the US) all for one simple fee (the lower, the better as always). This leaves tens of thousands of companies over dozens of countries, so someone or many people will need to do the research on where to put the money and to continue to follow if that remains a good investment. Therefore, these funds usually (but not always) will necessarily be actively managed, so mind those fees and make sure that the returns of the fund are rock solid in terms of how good they are and how consistent they are even after the fees are subtracted out.

Examples (but not suggestions): Vanguard FTSE All World ex US Index Fund, iShares MSCI ACWI ex US ETF (Yeah, even the names of these funds are intimidating.)

2.) Pick a regional fund which focuses on one geographic area such as Europe, Asia, the Middle East, Latin America, or even sole countries such as Japan or Turkey. It’s completely fine to do this, but there are several caveats to be noted here.

A,) You MUST have some general knowledge of the region or country. Vacations or a semester abroad fifteen years ago which was composed of mostly boozing is not field research and does not constitute deep understanding of international geopolitics. If you don’t understand the area/country, don’t invest in it solely. What makes it attractive now may be annihilated by  civil war, political strife, a trade war, sanctions, or just plain mismanagement among many other variables.

B.) You MUST know who the managers of these funds are that you are so enchanted with. You must know who they are, what their expertise in this region/country is, how long they have been managing the fund, how long they have been managing other funds or in the mutual fund business altogether, and, likely, most importantly, the fund managers’ performance (minus fees as always) at the fund you plan to invest in for the time he/she was the manager. If their performance is great/stellar and everything else checks out, then go ahead…but one last caveat—you need to ensure that you keep track of the fund manager himself/herself. If the manager retires/dies/move on, then you might have to do the same.

Examples (but not suggestions): VanEck Vectors Egypt Index ETF, iShares MSCI Chile Index Fund, WisdomTree India Earnings, Fidelity Nordic Fund

3.) A hybrid fund worth mentioning is the regional funds that mix and match geographic regions such as Middle East/Africa, Africa/Asia, or Europe/Middle East. All of the above caveats for regional/country funds still hold true even though (in theory only) the risk should be less with a wider geographic distribution to draw from.

Examples (but not suggestions): T. Rowe Price Africa & Middle East Fund, Commonwealth Australia/New Zealand Fund

4.) There are funds that group together disparate countries that may or may not have anything in common like the oft-mentioned BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) nations which were rapidly developing with huge growth rates in their economies (not so much as it turns out especially since these countries have absolutely nothing to do with one another) or the lesser known CIVETS (Colombia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Egypt, Turkey, South Africa) which were touted to be emerging or frontier markets (which also didn’t quite work out…at least so far).

Examples (but not suggestions): The less said here, the better…

If this isn’t already confusing or daunting enough, then consider this: Not only are there country or region funds like the ones above, but then each country or region could also have large cap, mid cap, or small cap funds and then each of those could be value or growth or a blend between the two in investing style terms therefore each country/region could have at least nine types of funds to compare and contrast with one another.

5.) The potentially riskiest of all international investing for the average retail investor is the stocks of non-US based companies. If you aren’t already experienced in individual stock investing in the US or even the largest non-US based companies, then you shouldn’t think of putting your hard earned money into individual stock of lesser known companies that aren’t based in the US.

Examples (but not suggestions): Shell, BP. LVMH, Nestle; the lesser known companies are ones like WalMart of Mexico, Arcos Dorados (you already know what this is if you know Spanish), and Infosys which are all multi-billion dollar companies even though you may have never heard of them  

6.) International bonds, commodities, or even real estate are potential investments, but are the riskiest of the listed securities. These are neither for the faint of heart nor for the novice investor. If you haven’t been heavily invested and experienced with the above securities domestically first, then you shouldn’t even consider an international version.

Examples (but not suggestions): If you don’t already know, you don’t need to know.

Enough for one post…

I’d love to hear from any and all of you about your thoughts, so we can all learn from one another.

Please spread the word about this blog to your friends (real and virtual), family, and colleagues. Talk to you soon.

Until next time…

Judging Performance

Never forget these two axioms:

Money frees us, but its pursuit enslaves us.

It’s not how much you have at the end; it’s how much you could have made.

 

JUDGING PERFORMANCE

 

Unfortunately (at least for some), there is a lot of math and statistics entailed in investing. Lots of metrics, numbers, stats, and the like are thrown around on the news, by financial advisors, in the papers and websites, etc, etc,

It’s rare that I speak in absolutes (which often drives my family and friends, but extremely rarely patients and their families), but in this one case, I will speak in definitive absolutes.

THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT NUMBER IN ALL OF INVESTING IS UNDERSTANDING HOW WELL YOUR INVESTMENT IS DOING—IE, ITS PERFORMANCE.

Nothing will impact what you do as much as this one number. It will guide you in what to do, when to do it, and whether to change course or not.

A few basic rules of the road when judging performance:

  1. Always calculate your returns net of fees (I warned you that you’d hear this phrase again) and your total amount after taxes are paid out of that amount
  2. Always use your benchmarks for comparisons rather than just looking at your percent return in a vacuum and think “Hey, I’m pretty awesome at this investing thing. Move over, Warren Buffett!” when in reality you’re worse off than the average investor. You need to know your guideposts for understanding where you stand each quarter or year especially if paying fees for what should be a higher return. (You’re paying for something, so shouldn’t you be getting what you pay for? Shouldn’t you know if you’re truly getting a higher return and not just being reassured or reassuring yourself with what you want to be true rather than what is true?)
  3. You need to look at your monthly, quarterly, or, at a minimum, annual statements. No matter how “remote control” or “passive portfolio” you’re in (or, much worse, think you’re in), you need to see what is going on there. Falling asleep at the wheel of your portfolio for a decade is just a terrible idea. You literally cannot afford to do that. Literally, And, I mean that. It’s literally not like all the people who use “literally” as a crutch word and actually mean figuratively.

{RLE #8: An extremely hard working and dedicated doctor I know only opens his statements and sees what they were in value last month and now this month with nothing else even remotely looked at. It was only after I spoke with him that he even realized that he may actually be losing money many months, but it looked like he was making money since the loss for that particular month may be less than he was contributing to his investment account. You have $100,000 in your investment account and are putting in $5,000 a month. Then, the next month, when you have $103,000, you’ve not actually gained $3,000. I don’t want alarm you. But I do have bad news for you. You’ve lost $2,0000. I couldn’t believe a guy as smart as him didn’t understand that basic truth of investing and how to even read your statements. In his entire professional career, he wouldn’t even think of being this careless or superficial in understanding a test, imaging, lab, or pathology report when it came to his patients. Yet, here he was, without even a basic grasp of his entire investment account…twenty years after he began investing for his retirement. If he was like this, how many others are there? And they don’t even know it? That is the really alarming part of this whole RLE.}

BENCHMARKS

OK, let’s get started.

First thing is to know what you should be comparing your investment to.

Stocks=S&P 500. It’s that simple…for once.

Mutual Funds and ETF’s are more complicated. They each have their own benchmark which is shown on each statement. If you search online for the performance of the fund in question, you will also see the accompanying benchmark fund to compare against. There is something known as the Lipper awards where a financial analytical company (Thomson Reuters Lipper) scours tens of thousands of funds over dozens of countries to grade each one (1 to 5 with the higher the number being better), They even award the best funds in each sector or category (eg, utilities, foreign, financials, etc.) at the end of each year based on expense and returns among other things, The Lipper grade for funds’ performance over 3, 5, and 10 years is assigned by the following metrics: Total Return, Consistent Return, Capital Preservation, Tax Efficiency (For US Funds Only), and Expense . You can use these Lipper grades to give you an idea how your fund compares to its peers.

But recall, the comparison is apples to oranges until you subtract your fees (ie, the fund’s expense ratio—remember that?) out of your fund’s performance numbers. Just simply take the percent return your fund did over the year and subtract out the expense ratio from it.

Bonds  are either the simplest investment to track for performance or the most complex.

Dr. Unwise: Huh?

Dr. Scared: This is it! This is it!! This is how they screw you!!!

PWT: No. Exactly no. It’s precisely how no one screws anyone else.

A bond has a coupon (remember?) which tells you how much you’ll get in interest payments each year until it “matures” (ie, it expires and your original value or par value is returned to). There is no true benchmark to compare against for bonds, but you can compare one bond’s performance to that of another (YTM or yield to maturity, remember?). The thing to keep in mind is that inflation (3.22% on average, right?) is eating away at your returns, especially on bond returns since they are generally speaking such low returns.

[My opinion here only: Regardless of how conservative of an investor you are, low yield (ie, low interest) bonds are not a good way to invest until you near retirement and just want to maintain what you’ve already earned. You won’t build wealth with low yield bonds and could actually lose money in a relative sense even as you gain in numerical value if your yield is less than what inflation is during the entire term of your bond. Not a great investment. Not swell. Not. At. All.]  

Let’s go through some examples.

STOCKS

You have  $10,000 of stock in Company X and check on it every so often when you hear about it on the news. It does well over the year and like a dutiful investor armed with the learned knowledge from PWT, you check on how it did versus the S&P 500.

2017 returns for Company X= 15.8% (Great job, major player!)

2017 returns for S&P 500=21.83% (Uh..oh…well, not so great job, little player…)

If you have used a financial advisor to purchase this stock for you, then that fee will need to be paid out as well. Let’s say that your financial advisor is nice and very affordable and charges you 0.5% (AKA 50 basis points in their jargon) which means that you are being charged 0.5% of the total assets with your advisor (regardless if it’s stocks, funds, or bonds).

SR: Hey, guy, I warned you about all these statistics…  

PWT: Yeah, yeah, I know.

For that $10,000 you have with your advisor, you’ll be paying your advisor $50 every year as long as you hold that money or investment with him or her. (Or, in other words, for every $10,000 you have with your advisor, you’ll pay $50 yearly. So $500 each year for $100,000. $5,000 for $1 million. And so on and so forth.) As your investment increases, so does the payout to your advisor. Therefore, your interests are aligned since the advisor makes more money as you do.

In this example then, your 2017 return for holding Company X was 15.3% (15.8-0.5), not 15,8%.

Let’s do the same example with a new twist.

$10,000 in Company X with a 4% dividend (paid out quarterly into a cash account) with a 2017 return=15.8%

2017 returns for S&P 500=21.83%

Your total investment return (pre-tax) is then at 19.8% without any advisor or 19.3% with an advisor.

However, if the dividends are automatically reinvested into Company X each quarter, then the return will be different and possibly significantly so. The total return in this case will be determined by the following:

  1. how much stock was purchased by each dividend payout (ie, what  the stock price was at the time of each purchase) which will in turn determine how much the next dividend payout will be with each dividend reinvestment leading to a higher one the next payout
  2. what the stock itself is doing in terms of its price
  3. what the dividend yield is doing (stable, up, or down) as the year progresses
  4. the taxes on your dividends
  5. the taxes on your sale of the stock if it happens (ie, capital gains taxes if you are selling higher than you bought for)

The easiest way to calculate total return in stock you held all year and didn’t sell is to just look at your 2016 year end statement and then see the value of the same stock in your 2017 year end statement, then do the easy math with a calculator. After that, you need to subtract out the taxes you owe for the dividends (whether the dividends are generating cash or being reinvested into the stock generating the dividend in the first place AKA a DRIP [Dividend Re-Investment Plan] or any other investment) no matter what. (As of 2013, the dividend tax has been 15% (or 20% for you all rich fat cats that light your fancy cigars with $100 bills and are in the top income tax bracket of 39.6%) with a 3.8% surcharge for married couples with incomes over $250,000 or single taxpayers with an income of $200,000 which was enacted in 2010 to help pay for the Affordable Care Act. [Thanks a lot, Obama!])

If you were in the top income tax bracket of 39.6% from 2010-2017, your entire dividend tax was 23.8% (20% dividend tax + 3.8% NIIT [Net Investment Income Tax AKA the Obamacare surtax among many other things].  It was fairly easy to calculate an approximate figure of your post-tax dividend gains—just divide your dividend gains by four and hold three parts for you and give one part over to the federal government or multiply the dividend gains by 0.75 if you prefer (since 23.8% is approximately 25%).

Therefore, in the above tax bracket, it will be calculated as the following.

$10,000 in Company X with a 4% dividend (paid out quarterly into a cash account) with a 2017 return=15.8%

2017 returns for S&P 500=21.83%

Pre-tax dividend gains + Company X return= 19.8% return

Post-tax dividend gains + Company X return~18.8% return (or, precisely, 18.848%).

You can see the attraction to dividend paying stocks or funds now. They can really juice the returns.

Now, the new tax reform passed in December 2017(officially titled as The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 [TCJA]) changed all of this. (One thing that didn’t change is the following: Dividends are considered “qualified” once you own the stock or fund producing the dividend for over sixty days (ninety days for preferred stock). Selling before that would make your dividends taxed as ordinary income which would mean that they are taxed far higher than what the taxes would be for qualified dividends given the income levels for the average physician.   

Dividends are now taxed at the following rates:

  1. 0% below $77,200 of taxable income for married joint filers or below $38,600 if single (or, the rarer category, married filing separately)
  2. 15% between $77,200-$479,000 for married joint filers or $425,800 if single (or, in the rarer category of being married filing separately, $38,600-$239,500)
  3. 20% if above any of the upper thresholds listed above in the 15% bracket
  4. The 3.8% NIIT is still applied to all dividends based on your modified adjusted gross income (more on taxes in a later post) of $250,000 for married joint filers or $200,000 for single (or all other) filers.

 

If you’re selling stocks and/or funds for a gain, you will be taxed at a capital gains tax rate. Short term capital gains are defined as anything held less than a year. Anything held over a year and then sold for a profit is considered a long term capital gain. Short term capital gains are taxed at whatever level your income level determines as short term capital gains are taxed as ordinary income. Long term capital gains are taxed far below what the taxes would be for short term capital gains given the income levels for the average physician.   

Long term capital gains would be taxed as the following:

  1. 0% below $77,200 of taxable income for married joint filers or below $38,600 if single (or, the rarer category, married filing separately)
  2. 15% between $77,200-$479,000 for married joint filers or $425,800 if single (or, in the rarer category of being married filing separately, $38,600-$239,500)
  3. 20% if above any of the upper thresholds listed above in the 15% bracket
  4. No NIIT!!

 

SR: Hey, wait a second…those long term capital gains tax rates…aren’t they…?

PWT: Yep. Both the qualified dividend and long term capital gains tax rates are identical.

Mutual Funds

Thankfully, mutual funds are treated exactly the same as stocks in terms of taxing the dividends and capital gains. So re-read the above (or reference the above passage) when dealing with mutual funds and their tax implications.

SR: About time something broke our way…

There is one exception however when it comes to ETFs.

SR: God Damn it! Well, that didn’t last very long…

Dr. Scared: This it! This is it!! This is how they screw you!!!

PWT: It’s actually a good thing.

The dividends of ETF’s are taxed precisely the same way as those of mutual funds. The one difference is that ETFs create less taxable events leading to what should be less taxes for you on average over an extended period of time (years, not months).

Just don’t forget to subtract out the expense ratio from your earnings from any fund, then your taxes out of that figure. It’s an extra expense (and step) you don’t have to deal with when it come to stocks.

Bonds

Bonds can be a little tricky when it come to taxes depending on the type you get.

Dr. Scared: This is it! This is it!! This is how they screw you!!!

Dr. Unwise:…so annoying….

Let’s go over the generalities first.

Only the earnings from the bonds (either the payout or the difference between the original purchase price and what you sell it for are what is taxed, not the original principal investment) are taxed. By whom for each bond is explained below.

The earnings from corporate bonds are taxed by all levels of government (federal, state, and local) as ordinary income. Keep that in mind as you calculate your earnings from a corporate bond.

The earnings from municipal bonds are free from local taxes. State issued bonds are free from state taxes. Most state bonds have their earnings taxed at the federal level as ordinary income whereas municipal bonds are usually exempt from federal taxes.

However, there is a potentially juicy bonus here. There are municipal bonds that are known as “triple tax free” where all three levels of government have decided that a certain construction project is so important that no local, state, or federal taxes will be levied against the earnings from these particular municipal bonds. Often, these “triple tax free” bonds have a lower yield rate since they already have such a great  tax advantage to them. Therefore, a little math will be needed to figure out if these bonds are the best earning for you vs other bonds that are taxed by one, two, or even all three levels of government, but have a significantly higher yield to compensate for these taxes. That’s also where you handy dandy friendly neighborhood financial advisor comes in. They do all those math, so you don’t have to. Honestly, they should. You’re paying them after all. This is exactly how they earn it.

Lastly, the earnings from federal AKA US Treasury bills/notes/bonds (remember the difference?) are not taxed at the federal level, but are at the local and state level.

I always judge performance only after all fees and taxes owed are paid out. After all, that’s what you will live off of eventually, not the debt to your mutual fund, financial advisor, or taxes still owed. I look at how much total I put into any investment and then take out all the fees and taxes owed and then see what I have left thus telling me exactly what I made each year or over the years.  Anything else is a complete overestimation of how much you have/have made which will blind you to how well you or your financial advisor is really doing and how tax efficient your investing is which would in turn help you decide if you should stay the course and keep adding to said investment or change it for better returns by making either at least this investment or even your entire portfolio more tax efficient (at a minimum) OR just changing your investments totally in a different direction/asset class,etc.

One last point before we depart…

When figuring out how well your investment has done over multiple years (say, 3, 5, 10, 15, or even 20 years), you need to understand how to calculate how well your investment did on average yearly over that time, not just as one lump sum at the end of the time period you decided to study/look at your investment.

If you put $10,000 into an investment—anything as it doesn’t matter what for the sake of this example, but to make it simple, let say it’s an index mutual fund—and five years later, it has grown to $15,000 (Hells yeah!), then you’ve had a fifty percent gain over the past five years. The temptation is to say that you have earned an average of 10%/year over the past five years to give you a total return of 50% over the past half decade. Then, you march out the (in this example) fund’s expense ratio (let’s say…hmm, I don’t know, 0.14%, for no particular reason) and you get a very healthy 9.86% per year average over the past five years.

Right?

Right??

Wrong.

Dr. Scared: Oh God, just kill me now!   

When you calculate your average growth rate over five years properly, the actual compound average growth rate (CAGR) is 8.45%/year over the past five years, not 10%/year which is just the arithmetic mean (total return/years needed to gain this return).  After your theoretical expense ratio is subtracted out, then your CAGR is actually 8.31% over the past five years, not 9.86%. If it had been 9.86%, then your $10,000 would be $16,000 five years later, not $15,000—a sizable difference when dealing with tens or especially hundreds of thousands of dollars, no?

The reason for the difference here is simply that you have to account for the yearly gains since the money is gained throughout each year and not just all at once at the end of the five years in this example.

Ten percent of $10,000 the first year would be $1,000 making $11,000. Then, 10% of $11,000 would be $1,100 making the total $12,100 thus already showing you how off the calculation is by year two alone. (Even these calculated assumptions can be quite off depending on when the gains are made [ie, how early or late in the year] versus when the interest is applied [beginning of the year, end of the year, or throughout the year evenly or irregularly throughout the year as more money is put into a stock or fund which is usually the case when investing money at regular time intervals without paying attention to the cost of the equity which is known as dollar cost averaging as sometimes you will buy at a lower price and other times at a higher price, but overall will get it at a hopefully great company at a good price on average.])

Well, I think we have done enough (and then some) for one post.

I’d love to hear from any and all of you about your thoughts, so we can all learn from one another.

Please spread the word to your family, friends, and colleagues. It would be greatly appreciated.

Until next time…