Brick Upon Brick: How to Consider Starting a Portfolio with Stocks in It

 

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 blessing (for me) and curse (for all of you) is that when I run into  insurmountable obstacles like endless revisions on the alternative funds only portfolios I can just move forward in time to a future post and then jump back in time  (like this guy) once I smooth out issues with what was supposed to be the prior post (Sorry if this makes no sense).

ANYWAY…here’s a discussion on portfolios with stocks…

Portfolio Building, Part V

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 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 epic and 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.

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…

 

Portfolio Building, Part III: More Bricks

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 III

Let’s jump right into it since some of you may have felt robbed last time you checked in. The example we used was following the rule/suggestion of 110-age=% of stocks/funds in your portfolio with you being a forty (Ugh or Yay!) year old. So 70% stocks/funds are what you will need for that age if you are following this suggestion.

If you’re not happy with a steady return that matches the S&P 500 in exchange for a modestly-moderately increased risk of loss, then here is a possible approach.

In danger of quoting myself from even just my last post….

The standard avenues in the realm of stocks/funds for returns better than the S&P 500 (drumroll please) are the following:

  1. Small cap funds
  2. Mid cap funds
  3. International funds
  4. Stocks

What proportion you want of each will depend again on your risk tolerance, but let’s have the facts laid out first before you decide anything.

Small caps have historically beaten the S&P 500 over the past century on average and in five of the past eight decades by a wide margin whereas the three decades where they underperformed relative to the S&P 500, they barely lost out to the S&P 500.

There are value and growth companies/stocks at each market capitalization level. (To make simple examples by companies that everyone should have heard of, think of Amazon or Netflix as growth stocks and Johnson & Johnson or ExxonMobil as value stocks.)

There are value or growth funds at each level. To make things more confusing, there are also “blended” funds at each market cap level. They may be labeled as blended or just have the market cap level noted without any further designation such as “Blah blah blah Small Cap Fund” (with “Blah blah blah” standing in for the name of the company’s name such as Fidelity or Vanguard as example of two well known ones—sorry to lose you in my technical jargon). If you want a simple approach where there is as few moving parts as possible, you could do the following:

30% S&P 500 Index Fund

20% Mid Cap (Blended) Fund

20% Small Cap Blended Fund

20% Bonds

10% Cash

This ensures what should be a decent return above the S&P 500, but with only a modestly higher risk of loss above the S&P 500.

International funds may increase your return, but will invariably increase your risk of loss as well. They are impossible to give you a historical return on given that there are multitudes of international funds (eg, All World, Europe, Asia, Middle East, Latin America, etc.), multiple companies (Fidelity, Vanguard, T. Rowe Price, etc.), and different investing styles/types (eg, passive, active, growth, value, mid cap, small cap, large cap). For international funds, you’ll have to find the exact one you’re thinking of and look up its historical performance data to see how it’s done over the past years or decades even.

Better yet, a financial advisor will do all of the footwork for you and advise you what to put it in. Just check how it has done for the past year, five years, ten years, and “life of the fund” (ie, however long it has been around whether 7 years or 70 years) and ask why this specific region/country (read up on the area if you know nothing about it) or why this certain investing style (value instead of growth or vice versa, small cap instead of large cap), and as ALWAYS, check the expense ratio of the fund and make sure you understand what the true returns of said fund only after you subtract out the expense ratio.

As you can see it takes a bit of work or money (the fees you pay your financial advisor) to make sure you’re putting money into the “right” (whatever that means) funds.

But, think of it this way: you work (among many other reasons) to make money or spend cash to invest in other things you value (eg, car, house, TV, phone, etc) that bring back to you enjoyment or value of many other kinds.

This work or deployed capital is exactly the same: you’re working to make money or spending money to get something in value (and, even better, something that will hopefully increase in value and not depreciate like most everything else you will buy).  

Personally, I’m an investing/personal finance nerd and enjoy finding great value in excellent funds at a good price. I don’t expect anyone else to be, but it’s important. This is your and your family’s financial future. Precious few things will be more important.

This little extra work is definitely worth it when you consider that the difference between a great company and a good company over the next 20-30 years would be enormous. Besides, it’s not supposed to be fun; after all, it’s called work for a reason. Moreover, it’s likely far easier than what you do in your day-to-day job and will pay far more years or even decades from now than a few hours of work.   

Let’s talk about several other fund only portfolios in the future.

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 II: Brick by Brick

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 II

Last time, we discussed a rule of thumb for what some have suggested is a good guide to adjusting your portfolio as you age.

110-age=% of your portfolio that should be in stocks+funds combined

Let me be clear what we are discussing here—this is all in regards to your personal investment portfolio, not your workplace retirement account (401K, 403B, 457B, etc—-much more on this in a later post).

That’s all well and good or arguable or even ultimately utter rubbish. (I think it’s a perfectly fine guide personally. For some, it may seem too aggressive in their older, post-retirement age though my counterargument is that you will likely live very long after retirement if you retire in your sixties.

What I want to focus on instead is what to do in terms of stocks and funds in your retirement portfolio regardless of what percentage they may hold.

For some of you, you already have your favorite funds or even stocks that have performed well and are way ahead of the game (or at least you hope). For others, you may not know at all and would then rely on a financial advisor to help get you into the right securities. There may be others in between that aren’t sure if they want a financial advisor (more about that in a future post), aren’t sure if what they are in via their financial advisor is best suited for them, or simply aren’t sure what their money should be in.  

One piece of advice…

The non-funds part of your investment portfolio should be held in bonds and cash. (Some cash should ALWAYS (note the absolutism employed here which is exceedingly rare for me, but is appropriate in this case) be held back for any time great investing opportunities come up such as when there is a dip in the market leading to a price of a stock or fund that is great, not just good. The bonds should be just that: bonds.

Do not confuse bonds with bond funds.

Bond funds are what they sound like—funds composed of bonds with different interest rates and maturity dates where payouts are streaming in as more purchases are made to keep profits and payouts going. Bond funds have expenses attached to them that you pay for which will lower your returns as well as the fact that bond funds can actually drop in value (often when interest rates rise since interest rates and bond prices/value are inversely related) just like mutual funds or stocks.

If you want bond funds (and, personally, I detest them as they are lower performing securities with all the disadvantages of funds [have to pay fees and can lose both your gains and even your original investment] with all the low returns of bonds), then ensure they are a component of the funds portion of your investment portfolio, not the non-funds portion, because that’s exactly what they are.   

So, let’s say you’re forty, which means you’re earning good money, possibly married, possibly with kids, and now having an investment portfolio with 70% stocks/funds, 20% bonds (which you decided to put into triple tax free municipal bonds—all of which will be local to you which would mean that specific ones cannot even be named), and 10% cash for that great deal that may be lurking around the next quarter.

So what is that 70% stocks/funds portion actually made of?

Well, that goes back to your risk tolerance and how satisfied (or unhappy) you are with matching or keeping up with the returns of the S&P 500.

If you’re really happy with just what the S&P 500 is doing, then put all 70% in a S&P 500 index fund. The key is to pick the cheapest one possible, so that fees don’t destroy your returns over the next quarter of a century (remember, for better or for worse, in this example, you’re forty years old–lot of working years ahead of you which is good as you’re at the height of your medical career and have both plenty of expenses ahead of you and plenty of time and opportunities to hit your Magic Number).

If you’re seeking bigger/better returns than the S&P 500 provides, there are a few avenues available to you as long as you realize that necessarily this increases risk of losing gains made elsewhere or even your original investment.  

The standard avenues in the realm of stocks/funds for returns better than the S&P 500 (drumroll please) are the following:

  1. Small cap funds
  2. Mid cap funds
  3. International funds
  4. Stocks

SR: WHy the hell would I want to invest in ball cap companies? I don’t even like wearing them.

PWT: Oh boy…

You’ll see all publicly traded companies characterized by what is known as market capitalization. Market capitalization in a publicly traded company is calculated by multiplying the number of shares available for trading/sale (ie, the outstanding shares) times the share price of the stock. Since the stock price varies from day to day, obviously the market capitalization of any company varies daily as well (even hour to hour or by the minute). (Market capitalization isn’t a great way to value a company for multiple reasons including the fact that it doesn’t take into account the debt the company carries at any given time, but more on this at a later post).

Small market capitalization companies (ie, small caps)=<$2 billion

And two lesser used company terms:

Nano caps<$50 million

Micro caps=$50 million-$2 billion

Mid caps=$2 billion-$10 billion

Large caps>$10 billion

Mega caps>$200-$300 billion (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 growth in these companies given how big they already are)

SR: I guess a million dollars isn’t what it used to be…

PWT: Yeah. Tell me about it.N

Now that we have reached a climax, let me disappoint you all and we will conclude building a market beating portfolio (or, at least, we hope) next 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…

Fees: An Invisible Drag…That is Visible

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.

 

The best things in life cost nothing, but the best things to invest do cost money…and often at least twice. Remember, we are talking about fees associated with your investments, not any of the taxes incurred with said investments. That’s another post entirely, right?

Realize all the fees for your investments are open and fairly transparent, but it’s incumbent upon you to ensure that you know what they are and how much they affect your returns. It’s no different than understanding what the total costs to your home mortgage are.

You should definitely know all the costs. After all, it’s you paying for all of it.

Let’s go from cheapest to most expensive in terms of what it costs you to hold your investment, not the price of the investment itself.

BONDS

This should be the cheapest of the three major investment types we have talked about so far. You buy the bond at a certain price and then wait for it to mature as you get paid along the way or at the date of maturity depending on the bond. There are no fees attached to a bond above the price of the bond itself…unless you have a financial advisor…then you’re charged a fee from him or her. (What that fee is, how it’s calculated, if its worth it or not etc will be discussed in a later post.)

That’s it. It’s that simple with bonds. It makes sense that the security with the lowest return (generally speaking) has the lowest fees—and without an advisor, there are no other fees.

STOCKS

Like bonds, the main cost of stocks are the price of the stock itself. Of course, you have to pay to purchase the stock itself. Special, huh? Imagine going to the store and paying your grocery store for the right to buy things there.

SR: That’s literally how Costco and Sam’s Club work.

PWT: Actually, in a way, that’s how all grocery stores work. They purchase the goods from all the manufacturers at one price and sell at a much higher price to all of us. They could actually sell the goods at their cost and charge us a fee for shopping there, Inf act, essentially, all stores of all kinds do precisely the same thing.

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

How much you pay to enact a stock transaction depends on who you are using for your stock transactions. As you gain greater value (ie, the total value of the funds from that particular fund family) into your account in some of the large brokerage firms like Vanguard, they will cut your stock transaction fee further. Keep these fees as low as possible as well given that they eat away at your returns though they are a one-off cost.    

Of course, if you have an advisor, a (hopefully small) fee will be charged to you for their management of your investment portfolio. But there’s an upside here as well. Your advisor isn’t charging you to buy any stocks; it’s included as part of your management fee. So you’ve got that going for you…which is nice….

FUNDS

As noted previously, mutual funds and ETF’s have an expense ratio charged to you in addition to the price you purchased the fund at. A general rule of thumb is that the breaking point is 1%. If you’re being charged above that, you better be getting outsized returns way beyond every other fund out there…and do it every year on average for 20 years or longer. Newsflash: That doesn’t happen.

Never look at your returns from any fund until you subtract out your expense ratio from you returns for any particular year. Most funds in their performance numbers will give you the total returns, the returns with fees (ie, expense ratio) subtracted out, and occasionally, if you’re lucky,  they will report your returns after all taxes and fees are taken out.

Generally speaking (with exceedingly few exceptions), the lower your fund expense ratio (ie, fees) is, the greater your returns will be in the long term, especially when considering a twenty year time horizon or longer…which is exactly what you should be contemplating since that is the time frame from when you start(ed) your attending career to the time you retire.

Again, your financial advisor (if you have one) will take a (should be small) cut out of your investment portfolio.

Your job is to make your fees in whatever security you’re in.

LOWER FEES=HIGHER RETURNS (especially >10 years or longer which is your time to retirement)

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…

 

Risk: A Game of Not Global Domination, But Financial Planning

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.

Risk: A Game of Not Global Domination, But Financial Planning

Before determining what you’re buying at what price in what quantity and keeping said security for whatever length of time, you need to decide for yourself (and your family if applicable) what you want as an end result of your investing and what risk you’re willing to take to hold them as an investment.

Realize that all investments contain risk.

ALL.

OF.

THEM.

By risk, we mean that you will lose money on said investment, possibly even all that hard earned money you put in originally.

We all do this every day as doctors. As we take care of patients, we weight the risks and benefits of each treatment or testing option and move forward with the most beneficial course with risks ranging from none to tolerable to even high.

That’s essentially all investing is when talking about what is known as risk tolerance.

Virtually all securities that return a greater amount of money carry a higher risk than those that return a lesser amount.

Unfortunately, risk and return are directly related.

In my mind (and perhaps mine alone), it’s like why all the best tasting stuff is bad for you and the healthiest stuff tastes…meh.

ANYWAY…

In reverse order of risk:

Bonds carry low risk.

Federal or AKA Treasury bonds (bills and notes too, but I’ll just say bonds moving forward for the sake of convenience) are considered risk free because of the almost metaphysical certitude by which they are paid. The US government would have to completely fold and not pay anything ever before bond payments stop . If you recall, you as the bondholder are the creditor that is owed money before the debtor (in this case, the US government)  goes bankrupt. Given the fact that the US government can literally print as much as money as needed for any reason under the sun (reading this again as I proofread this post…this explains a lot of what is perhaps wrong with our current polticoeconomic situation), it’s virtually impossible to have US Treasury bonds default. Thus, risk free…

Municipal (AKA US city or county) bonds are slightly higher risk than federal bonds, but lower risk than any other widely available security. CIties (or counties or states) would have to go bankrupt before bonds issued by them became worthless. It can happen (hello again, Detroit! Also, hello Stockton, California!), but it’s extremely rare, may not affect these bonds while the city or county or state government “reorganizes” its finances, and is easily avoidable in the first place by knowing which areas are fiscally distressed. The latter is easily found out by a five minute Internet search into the area that is issuing the bonds or just simply (here’s a novel idea!) reading/listening to the news and being aware of the world around you. Remember that there may be extra tax benefits to certain municipal bonds which may make the juice worth the squeeze.

Corporate bonds are still safer than either stocks or funds by quite a bit (provided that they are not the often talked about and greatly derided/feared junk bonds), but less safe than other aforementioned (What a great word! You literally cannot sound stupid saying it) types of bonds. As expected, the riskier these bonds the higher the yield, And the lower the yield, the lower your risk you have to endure to get your money.

Mutual funds and ETF’s carry a risk in between bonds (lowest) and stocks (highest risk). The collection of stocks and/or bonds will offer downside protection because even as some stocks fall, other will rise or at least stay even.

Stocks offer the highest return of the Big Three widely commercially available securities with the highest possibility of downside. Just ask anyone who suffered through the 2008-2009 Great Recession.

In 2008, the S&P 500 finished the year 37% lower than it opened.

This is what the risk averse and haters of the stock market in general or stocks specifically bring up as soon as the topic of investing comes up. Even if you had suffered through the brutality of the 2008 market (which didn’t hit its bottom until March 2009 actually), the market went on a tear that hasn’t slowed down since. In fact, it’s been on a rocket since 2017 began.

The annualized return from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2017 (thus even including the terrible months of Jan-March 2009) is 15.29%.

SR: Uh, yeah, stats guy. That’s great and all…IF YOU’RE A NERD!!! What does that mean in real dollars?

 

PWT: Sure Great question. After all, that’s why we’re all here.

 

SR: Nah. I’m mostly here to crack wise. I’m like a digital Statler…or Waldorf…or both.

 

PWT: Not one millenial here has any idea what you’re talking about right now.

 

SR: Ah, shut up, money man.

 

PWT: Anyway…

For every $100 you had in the stock market (not bonds, cash, etc.) at the start of 2008, you would have $63 at the end of that same year.

SR: Ouch

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

For every $63 (the amount left from the original $100 once reduced by the annus horribilis of 2008)  in stocks starting at the beginning of 2009, you’d have $226.80 on January 1, 2018.

So, 226% increase since 2009.

Not bad.

Even if you include 2008, the worst performing year of the last three decades in the stock market, you had a 8.49% per year annualized return in a S&P 500 only portfolio from Jan 1, 2008 to Dec. 31, 2017.

SR: Hey there, guy, I just need…

PWT: We know, We know.

For every $1 you put into the market at the start of 2008,  you would have wound up with $2.26 by the end of 2017…and that’s with surviving the worst year in recent memory.

For those who would argue that they would have retired in 2009 if the stock market hadn’t crashed, then you likely weren’t positioned for retirement in the first place. (Much more about this in a later post.)

Also, this assumes you were only in stocks, not any outperforming fund, bonds, any alternative investments, or just cash (always in style, always fits, and never gets old). Even if you had 100% of your portfolio in only stocks, and then decided to not see the 2008-2009 crash as a buying opportunity (but hopefully not as a selling point either), then you would have been forced to work until 2012 ended. (If you worked through the end of 2011, your stocks only portfolio would be 94% of its January 1, 2008 value.)

The above is predicated on two basic assumptions:

  1. ) Your stocks only portfolio is completely identical to the gyrations of the         S&P 500.
  2. ) All dividends were included and calculated in these returns.

This shouldn’t scare you off from the stock market, but rather convince you that you need to always be cognizant of your age, your net worth, your closeness to retirement, and what your Magic Number is.   

Therefore, the closer you are to your Magic Number, the more you need to be oriented towards maintaining your net worth (what is known as capital preservation) rather than growing it further.

ANYWAY…

Think of risk tolerance as an individual exercise. Don’t worry that yours may be dramatically different than your best friend’s, colleagues at work, etc.It should be different. In fact, I’d be worried if your risk tolerance is the same as everyone else you know.

Think of it like this.

How do you drive? How aggressive are you? How fast above the speed limit are you willing to push it on a highway? How willing are you to hit bumpers when you have to parallel park?

There’s plenty of online quizzes that test your risk tolerance as an investor that you can search for, but none of them are much better than thinking about what kind of driver you are.

It all boils down to the following:

Aggressive investors are willing to lose money in the short term in order to make outsized gains in the future/long term.They’re exchanging security for better returns.

Conservative investors are willing to have lower returns as long as their original investment is preserved and gradually increases in value over time. They’re exchanging returns for security. Or, as some might say, they’re exchanging returns for peace of mind.

And there are moderately aggressive investors that have a blended approach between the two which is likely where the vast majority of us are.

Just reading this probably tells you where you lie based on how you felt as you read that last passage.

It’s easy to be critical of others that aren’t like you, but being more aggressive than you’re comfortable and working on an ulcer rather than sleeping each night is nothing to brag about. But, people do it all the time. I know some that do. I’m sure you do as well.

Grousing about how well the market is doing and bitching about it all the time when you’re investing too conservatively for you and your family is nothing to celebrate and is certainly is not any way to live.

Personally, I’ve always been an aggressive investor and it has been great for me. But, realize what that means. You don’t have to be invested in companies you don’t understand like high technology (ie, AI, cloud computing, cybersecurity, etc) companies, but rather blue chip Dividend Aristocrats along with index funds which will get you great returns, but still categorize you as an aggressive investor. I always wanted to ensure my investments after any fees and taxes were subtracted out was significantly above inflation (3.3% on average, remember?). At the end of the day, though, you need to invest to your style and comfort and no one else’s.  

What is your risk tolerance?

Think about it.

If you’re married or in a seriously committed relationship, talk to your spouse or partner about it. Hopefully, if you’re not on the same page, you can find a very terrifically happy medium.

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…

Preferred Stock (Or, in this case, Forgotten, not Preferred)

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.

Preferred Stock

OK, people.

Confession time.

I made a massive mistake and am now correcting the error of my ways. While going over the basics of stocks, I somehow ignored/forgot the ins and outs of preferred stock.

PWT: Physician, Wealth Thyself to the rescue!!!

SR: What a dork…

Preferred stock lies somewhere between common stock (I know. Common…it makes you sound like a peasant…and this whole time you thought you were a budding tycoon…Damn!) and bonds in terms of what you are owed by the company and what you owe the company or are restricted doing. As the owner of preferred stock, once the company is in bankruptcy and has to liquidate its assets, it cashes out to everyone it owes money to including bond holders and then owners of preferred stock and then finally common stock owners…if anything at all is left over…which there never is.

Generally speaking, preferred stock have dividends and those dividends are paid out as a higher priority than those of common stocks. Even when the company in question is cutting or suspending dividends for common stock, it will pay out the dividends for preferred stock. However, if the company falls into such a bad cash flow situation that all dividends are suspended, eventually even the dividends of some types of preferred stocks can and will be stopped (whereas others cannot such as cumulative preferred stock—more on this later).

Preferred stocks are actually rated by credit agencies similar to bonds, but they are almost always rated lower than the best bonds because bond holders are creditors (ie, the bank for the company, remember?) and the company owes them above all others.

There are many types of preferred stocks which you can learn about on your own if you’d like, but I would not be a regular investor in them unless you have been a stock investor for years and really understand the ups and downs of stock investing OR have a financial advisor that is doing so for you. Even then, your financial advisor should be able to explain to you why they are putting your hard earned money into this preferred stock rather the common stock of the same company or any other investment. If this isn’t the case, you should either ask or not be invested in the preferred stock in the first place.

As a preferred stock holder, you have no voting rights in the operations of the company which is OK for virtually all retail investors (regular Joe and Jill investors like you and me), but it does need to be noted.

There are multiple reasons a company may issue preferred stock, but on the retail investor side, it’s essentially one line of thinking that leads you to buy preferred stock. You want a large, well established company that issues preferred stock with a high dividend which is well protected. Think of something on the order of a bond, but that pays a higher dividend that a bond does in its yield (generally speaking) and doesn’t lock you in for multiple years necessarily.

Here is a quick rundown of the pros and cons of owning a preferred stock.

Pros of Preferred Stock:

  1. Higher fixed-income payments than bonds (usually) or common stock
  2. Lower investment per share compared to bonds
  3. Priority over common stocks for dividend payments and liquidation proceeds
  4. Greater price stability than common stocks typically
  5. Greater liquidity than corporate bonds of similar quality

Cons of Preferred Stock:

  1. Callability (Depending on the kind of preferred stock and/or the terms attached to it, the issuing corporation can expire the preferred stock like a bond (remember?) depending on the needs of the corporation at any given time.
  2. Lack of specific maturity date makes recovery of invested principal uncertain
  3. Limited appreciation potential (You’re making money on the dividends typically and not the share price of the preferred stock itself.)
  4. Interest rate sensitivity (Yes, interest rates will fluctuate and they can in turn affect the dividend rates on your preferred stock. As it becomes more expensive for the corporation to borrow money, then it will pinch down on money it has already borrowed from others (ie, you) when and where it can (such as it can with preferred stock and some types of bonds).
  5. Lack of voting rights (if this matters to you)

Due to its fixed higher dividend rate(s), preferred stock has become more popular over the years and especially so over the past decade. Ten years ago, in the first quarter of 2008, the entire preferred stock market was valued at approximately $100 billion which seems staggering except when compared to other securities. At that time, the common stock and funds total market value was $9.5 trillion (9500% more than that of preferred stock) and the total value of the bond market then was over $4 trillion (4000% more than that of preferred stock). The increase in the preferred stock market has been steady as it was $241 billion by mid 2015 and $34.1 billion of new preferred stock was issued in 2016 alone. However, again, it was dwarfed by the $22.71 trillion total value of all available stocks/funds/bonds at that time. In fact, just three years ago, the total preferred stock market was only 3% of the total value of just the CORPORATE bond market alone (exclusive of the municipal and federal bond markets).   

One last thing of note for preferred stocks is how they are listed. Common stocks are just listed with the name of the company and what is known as the stock symbol or ticker symbol (such as Apple with AAPL or McDonald’s with MCD).

Preferred stocks however are listed in their own language such as the following:

Ashford Hospitality Trust Inc 8.45% Cum Pfd Ser D

SR: What in the name of all that holy is that abomination of a name mean?

Ashford Hospitality Trust Inc (Incorporated) is the name of the corporation issuing the preferred stock.

The 8.45% is the dividend yield that can reliably be expected as long the preferred stock is owned.

The Cum refers to…

SR: Yeah, hold it right there, Professor, We all know what that means…

PWT: Uh, yeah. ANYWAY…

That uh…abbreviated designation refers to the fact that this preferred stock is cumulative (see the links above for the most common types of preferred stock) meaning that if for any reason that the dividend is not paid at the expected time, then it is promised to be paid later (ie, the dividends/payments will accumulate).

The “Pfd” simply refers to the fact that it is preferred stock.

The “Ser D” means Series D refers to the fact that it is the fourth time preferred stock has been issued by this company. (Since D is the fourth letter of the alphabet, it indicates that it is the fourth offering of the preferred stock issued by this particular corporation.)

Dr. Know It All: Exactly how stupid do you think we are?

SR: Wait! Don’t answer that.

The way preferred stock is listed is as variable as the numbers and types of preferred stock.

Personally, I like it that way. It’s not meant to be confusing, but certainly can be. Consider it like a check against yourself or a speed bump to slow down you deploying your hard earned capital into the scary world. If you can’t understand every single bit of the listing of the preferred stock on your own (no cheating on the Internet!), then you shouldn’t invest in it. That’s a pretty good rule of thumb I would say.

I think this is a pretty good stopping point.

My apologies to all of you for skipping over this earlier, but maybe it was a good thing since this made for a more bite sized post to digest. (Self rationalization is also a good thing.)

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 family, friends, and colleagues.

Talk to you soon.

Until next time…

 

Stock Exchanges

Never forget these two axioms:

 

Money frees us, but its pursuit may enslave us.

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

 

Stock Exchanges

 

Not to get too big of a head, but let me quote myself from an earlier post…

 

“There’s a marketplace where people go to buy stocks just like you (or people you know because I’ve actually never done this even once in my life) buy produce at a farmer’s market.  This marketplace is called an ‘exchange’.”

 

Realize that not only stocks, but bonds and other securities (i.e., any tradeable financial instrument) can be bought and sold (i.e., traded) in what are commonly called “stock exchanges” or just “exchanges”, but clearly involve far more than stocks alone.

 

There are 18 stock exchanges in the world that have a market capitalization (i.e., all the combined value of all the stocks of all the companies in said exchange) of over $ 1 trillion (US) each. They are sometimes referred to as the “$1 Trillion Club”. These 18 exchanges accounted for ~90% of global market capitalization in 2015.

The below are the top twenty exchanges in the world ranked by market capitalization.

(The below are the name of the exchange, country, city, and market capitalization in millions of US dollars as of October 2017.)

 

1.)    New York Stock Exchange    United States    New York    21,377

2.)    NASDAQ    United States    New York    9,585

3.)    Japan Exchange Group    Japan    Tokyo    5,974

4.)    Shanghai Stock Exchange    China    Shanghai    5,043

5.)    Euronext European Union         Amsterdam/Brussels/Lisbon/London/Paris 4,388

6.)  London Stock Exchange    United Kingdom London    4,297

7.)    Hong Kong Stock Exchange    Hong Kong 4,135

8.)    Shenzhen Stock Exchange    China    Shenzhen    3,688

9.)    TMX Group    Canada    Toronto    2,360

10.)    National Stock Exchange of India India    Mumbai    2,194

11.)    Deutsche Börse    Germany    Frankfurt    2,181

12.)    Bombay Stock Exchange    India Mumbai 2,175

13.)    Korea Exchange    South Korea    Seoul    1,683

14.)    SIX Swiss Exchange      Switzerland    Zurich    1,649

15.)    Nasdaq Nordic    Northern Europe, Armenia    Stockholm    1,561

16.)    Australian Securities Exchange    Australia    Sydney    1,428

17.)    JSE Limited      South Africa    Johannesburg    1,129

18.)    Taiwan Stock Exchange    Taiwan    Taipei    1,068

19.)    BM&F Bovespa  Brazil    São Paulo    935

20.)    BME Spanish Exchanges  Spain Madrid    896

 

The New York Stock Exchange (NYSE)

 

New York, New YorkThe Big Daddy of Them AllMake It There and You’ll Make It Anywhere

 

The New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) is by far the largest of all the exchanges at over $21 trillion (roughly the value of the next four biggest exchanges in the world combined) with daily trading over $30 billion (often over $35-40 billion) and even a few days in 2017 near or above $100 billion just for that day.

There’s a reason for all this money floating around.

To be listed on the NYSE, a company must have issued at least one million shares of stock worth $100 million and must have earned more than $10 million over the last three years. The entry fee to the NYSE is up to $500,000-$75,000 with a yearly listing fee of up to $500,000 as well.

Yeah, your corner Gas-n-Sip isn’t going to cut it…unless it’s one of 400 locations.

The NYSE is open for trading Monday through Friday from 9:30 am – 4:00 pm EST, with the exception of holidays. So, putting in buy or sell orders after work means it will only be done the next trading day.

Believe it or not, the NYSE is a giant series of simultaneous auctions on all the stocks in the exchange where traders can trade stocks on behalf of investors. The traders who work for the NYSE literally huddle around the appropriate post where a specialist broker, who is employed by a NYSE member firm (ie, not an employee of the NYSE), acts as an auctioneer in an open air auction where buyers and sellers are brought together to execute transactions. If you see any movies like “Trading Places” where they show the trading floor of an exchange, it looks chaotic. And in the days of pen and paper, quite frankly, it was.

Of historical record, on September 25, 1995, NYSE member Michael Einersen, who designed and developed this system, executed 1000 shares of IBM through wireless hand-held computers (HHC) (it was his honor to do so since he designed and developed the system which allowed traders to both receive and execute trades electronically) ending a 203-year process of paper only transactions forever. Within two years, virtually all companies’ stocks could be traded electronically. Well over 90% of the trades at the NYSE are done electronically allowing for last minute, end of the day trades with nearly instantaneous execution.

Following the Black Monday market crash in 1987 (October 19, 1987, the largest one day DJIA percentage drop [22.6%, or 508 points at that time] in history occurred), the NYSE imposed brakes on trading to decrease volatility and hopefully end massive panic selling.

The NYSE has set the following three thresholds based on the average closing price of the S&P 500 (note that it’s the S&P 500 used for the benchmark and not the DJIA) for the preceding trading day.

They are the following:

Level 1: -7%

Level 2: -13%

Level 3: -20%

Therefore, if there is a level 1 or level 2 decline, there will be a 15 minute stoppage in trading (unless it occurs after 3:25 pm in which case no stoppage in trading occurs).

A Level 3 decline, on the other hand, triggers a suspension of trading being for the remainder of the day no matter when it occurs.

The NASDAQ (National Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotations)

The NASDAQ is the world’s second largest stock exchange as noted above (pretty impressive since it only started in 1971) and, as mentioned before, it tends to be heavy in technology companies. Microsoft, Apple, Cisco, Oracle, Dell, Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Netflix (but no chill) all debuted on the NASDAQ. It is still the go to exchange for the emerging technology company to debut on.

(In contrast to the NYSE, to be listed on the NASDAQ a company must have issued at least 1.25 million shares of stock worth at least $70 million and must have earned more than $11 million over the last three years. Speaking of contrast…the entry fee to the NASDAQ is $50,000-$75,000 with a yearly listing fee of ~$27,500. It’s good business to have low entry fees for tech startups gone big who are low on cash—which is the whole reason the company is offering shares in the first place.)

Not surprisingly, the NASDAQ was the first exchange in the US to start trading online, highlighting Nasdaq-traded companies and closing each trade with the boastful claim (and not so subtle jab at the old, stodgy NYSE) that the NASDAQ was “the stock market for the next hundred years”.

As of June 2015, the NASDAQ has an average annualized growth rate of 9.24% since its opening in February 1971.

Since the end of the so called “Great Recession” in June 2009, it has increased by 18.29% on average per year.

The NASDAQ Composite Index has actually more than quadrupled since January 2009.

Again, this is not at all surprising given how many of the largest technology companies (most of which are listed on the NASDAQ) are doing in the last forty years and especially the last decade.

Just so you know, there is a third stock exchange (also in New York just so they’re not feeling left out) called the American Stock Exchange or AMEX where approximately 10% of all the securities in the US traded. So, though you may have never heard of it, this is no small, cheap, chump change operation.

Once a major competitor of the NYSE before the NASDAQ came along in 1971, the American Stock Exchange is now mostly known for trading in small cap stocks, options, and exchange traded funds. Actually, AMEX is where ETFs were first employed.

AMEX has the least strict listing requirements among the three top American exchanges, which consequently results in many small companies joining it rather than the other two.

If you haven’t heard of Peabody Energy, you probably haven’t heard of any of the other companies listed on the American Stock Exchange.

Back to the Big Two…

So both the NYSE and NASDAQ are US stock exchanges (the two largest in the world) that the vast majority of publicly traded US companies are listed on with different entry fees.

The NASDAQ is owned and run by a for profit company. The NYSE was a non-profit entity…until March 8, 2006 when the NYSE became a for profit company publicly traded…on the NYSE. (To blow your mind further, the NASDAQ trades…on…wait for it…yep, you guessed it…the NASDAQ.)

So what’s the difference between the two?

Two principal differences:

1.) The NYSE has its trading occur on an actual physical “trading floor” at 11 Wall Street NYC. The NASDAQ doesn’t have a physical location for trading, but rather is a telecommunications network upon which all their online trading occurs.

2.) As noted before, the NYSE is like the world’s largest auction house where thousands of auctions between buyers and sellers happen every trading day (i.e., an auction market—I know, I know, I used the word ‘auction’ three times in one sentence, but there is no good synonym for that word I will not mention again in this post.) In the NYSE, you’re buying essentially what someone else has just sold.

The NASDAQ, though, is what is known as a dealer’s market where both buyers and sellers conduct their desired business through a third party.

That’s really it as far as us retail investors are concerned.

One last thing…

ADRs

Dr. Unwise: Uh…what now?

Dr. Scared: This is it! This is how they screw you!! Money under the mattress is the only way to go!

PWT: Uh, yeah, anyway…

 

ADRs or American Depository Receipts is how a non-US company can be listed on a US stock exchange. Think about it for a second. How does a, say, company in the UK like BP (it is British Petroleum after all) which is already listed on the London exchange get listed in the US? Honestly, what company wouldn’t want to have access to all the money American investors, retail and institutional, (aka the US capital market) provide?

So, this is how BP pulls off the neat trick of being listed at home in London and again in New York.

Before 1927 when ADRs were first introduced, the only way an American could buy into a foreign company was to buy shares on a foreign exchange.

The problem with that is twofold:

1.) You’re at the mercy of regulations in whatever country your company of choice is from.

2.) Currency fluctuations and foreign taxes may wipe out your gains.

An ADR is a US bank issued certificate that represents a share or a number of shares (or even a fraction of a share) in a foreign company that is traded in a US exchange. (To be more precise, every ADR is issued by a US bank [known as the custodian bank] once the underlying shares of the foreign company are deposited in a bank of the same  country of the foreign company.)

They act, feel, and trade like any other shares of any other company. ADRs are bought, valued, and even pay dividends in US dollars.

Generally speaking, the ADR moves in parallel with the foreign stock in its home country (but adjusted for the ratio of ADRs to shares of the foreign company in question since they don’t have to be 1:1).

Of note, UK companies that set up ADRs generate a 1.5% “creation fee” that you get to pay for the privilege of buying the ADRs of said UK company.

Other than a few exceptions like the above, ADRs should be evaluated, treated, and traded like any other stock.

Whew!

Enough.

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

 

Talk to you soon.

 

Asset Class IIIB: Return of the Bonds: Revenge of the Market

Never forget these two axioms:

Money frees us, but its pursuit may enslave us.

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

Asset Class IIIB

 

Return of the Bonds: Revenge of the Market

 

Let’s get to it.

 

Three Types of Bonds:

 

1.) US Government Bonds

 

U.S. federal bonds are categorized according to its maturity.

 

Bills=bonds maturing in less than one year

Notes=bonds maturing between one and ten years

Bonds= er, bonds maturing in over a ten year period

(Sorry, Mrs. Cunningham. My high school English teacher insisted on never using the word in question to define that same word. But, I guess that’s the beauty [or curse] of having your own blog.)

 

The above bonds are known collectively as “Treasuries” —i.e., Treasury bills (often called T-bills since apparently saying “Treasury” is too tiresome), Treasury notes, and Treasury bonds. All the bonds  (AKA debt) issued by the U.S. government is regarded as extremely safe, often referred to and/or considered as “risk-free” as are the bonds of many highly developed countries.

2.) Municipal Bonds

Municipal bonds AKA “munis” are bonds issued by state or local (city or county) governments or even government agencies. These bonds are often riskier than national government bonds. Cities don’t go bankrupt almost ever, but it can happen (Hi, Detroit!! I’m talking about you!).

The major advantage municipal bonds convey to investors is that any returns are exempt from federal taxes.

And, even better, state and local governments will often (but not universally) make the returns on their bonds non-taxable for residents of said state or locality thus making some (definitely not all) municipal bonds completely tax-free which is known as “triple-tax free” (ie, no federal, state, or local taxes).

Because of these tax exemptions, the yields on municipal bonds are usually lower than those of equivalent taxable bonds. When considering municipal bonds as an investment, it literally pays to check on their tax exemption status vs. their yield.

3.) Corporate Bonds

Short-term corporate bond < 5 years maturity

Intermediate corporate bond=5-12 years maturity

Long-term corporate bond> 12 years maturity

A few type of corporate bonds include the following:

Convertible bonds:  corporate bonds that give the bondholder (you) the option to convert the bonds into shares of common stock at a later date.

The number of shares an investor gets for each convertible bond is determined by a conversion rate which may be variable or fixed depending on the terms at the time the bonds are offered.

For example, a conversion rate of 20 means that for every $1,000 of face/par value (remember that?) you hold and then convert, you receive 20 shares of stock.

It’s incumbent on you as the investor then to decide whether or not it makes sense to convert bonds into stock (i.e., equity).

The way to do that is by dividing the selling price of the bond by the conversion rate, known as the breakeven price, and seeing whether that price is lower or higher than the company’s stock price at that time.

Example:

Let’s use the above bond for our purposes.

A.)

$1,000 bond with a conversion rate of 20.

Breakeven price=50

Company’s current stock price=$53.25

Get your shares, people!!

B.)

$1,000 bond with a conversion rate of 20.

Breakeven price=50

Company’s current stock price=$33.85

Hold steady with your bond(s)!

C.)

$1,000 bond with a conversion rate of 20.

Breakeven price=50

Company’s current stock price=$50

Aah. Dilemma time.

Break out your calculators and, to a lesser extent, your crystal balls.

You (should) know how many years you have left until maturity, what the bond’s coupon (remember that?) is, and what your payout is finally.

Then, compare that final total amount to what you think the company itself will do over that same time period including any possible/potential dividends.

Realize that dividends are taxed differently (currently 23.8% for annual incomes over $250,000 for a couple) than any bond payments will (which will be taxed as ordinary income, not exempt from taxes—remember, these are corporate bonds, not municipal bonds).

Much more on taxes and their impact on your investing in a later post.

Callable bonds: ones that can be redeemed by the issuer at some point prior to its maturity.

For example, if interest rates drop since the company first put out the bond, then the company will want to refinance this debt (remember that’s all bonds are from the perspective of the company—debt) at a lower interest rate.

In this case, the company “calls its current bonds” AKA reissues bonds at a lower rate of interest. Not surprisingly, callable bonds usually have a higher interest rate to compensate for the potential risk of them being reissued at a lower interest rate.

It’s no different than when you refinance your home mortgage. The only difference is that the advantage is for you in that case and to the issuing company in this case, BUT you do get an even higher interest rate than other bonds as compensation for an event that may actually never happen.

And just so you know and don’t accuse Physician, Wealth Thyself of shortchanging you (and I’m not sure how you can given how this is entirely free for you):

Asset-backed securities (ABS): a bond issued by banks or other large financial institutions

These bonds come from bundling the cash flows generated by other assets and offering them to investors thus why they are called “asset backed”.

If a bond like this is backed by a number of mortgages rather than other assets, they are known as mortgage-backed securities or MBS. These were a lot of the so-called “toxic assets” that propelled the entire planet into financial crisis once the US real estate market imploded.

Why?

Because these types of bonds, ABS or especially MBS, are usually only reserved for  institutional investors (i.e., banks, hedge funds, etc.) or extremely sophisticated, high net worth individuals, not just the average Joe and Jill investor like you and me.

Lastly, a few other bond types that you may hear about or be offered (just so you’ve heard of them—don’t ever blame Physician, Wealth Thyself for being neglectful):

A put bond (I know, I know. It’s spelled differently.) or putable bond is a bond that allows the holder (you) to force the issuer to repurchase the security at specified date(s) before maturity. The repurchase price is set at the time of the bond being issued and is typically par value AKA face value AKA what you paid for this bond originally. So, usually, this works to your advantage as an investor.

A discount bond is a bond that is issued for less than its face (or par) value, or a bond currently trading for less than its face value in that pesky secondary market. Discount bonds sound just like zero coupon bonds (remember them?) because they are except for one simple thing: zero coupon bonds do not pay interest.

A retractable bond is one where the holder (again, you) to force the issuer to redeem the bond before maturity at par/face value. You may choose to shorten the maturity on a bond because of market conditions or because you need the principal sooner than expected (hopefully for a hot new investment and not because you’re massively in debt). By doing so, you’re giving up on the interest payments of all those years you could have held the bond, but decided not to…but, at least, you have cash on hand.

An extendable bond is somewhat the reverse of the above retractable bond where an option to lengthen its maturity period exists. Depending on the specific terms of the extendable bond, the bond holder and/or bond issuer may have one (or even more) chances to delay the repayment of the bond’s principal during which time further interest payments continue to be paid out to you. Nice!

Also, the bond holder or issuer may—emphasis on “may”— have the option to exchange the bond for one with a longer maturity at an equal or even higher interest rate (Yay!). Because these type of bonds contain an option to push back the date of maturity, which makes them more valuable than other bonds, extendable bonds sell at a higher price than non-extendable bonds.

A few more concepts surrounding bonds:

To boil down complex stuff into a simple, neat axiom: the price of bonds are inversely related with interest rates. The hows, whys, etc. will be discussed in a later post. (Boy, I hope we have time for all these later posts.)

Yield-to-maturity (YTM) of a bond is an extremely helpful metric to evaluate a bond’s true price. YTM is the total return anticipated on a bond if the bond is held until the end of its lifetime. Makes sense given its name.

Though it’s considered a long-term bond yield, YTM is expressed as an annual rate. That number represents your return in any specific bond as long as you hold the bond until maturity and IF all payments are made as scheduled.

YTM is helpful as a measuring tool  weighing the attractiveness of one bond to another. It cuts across the differences between bonds with different coupons and different maturity dates, so you can compare them in a true apples to apples fashion.

For those of you desperate to know how YTM is calculated…

Dr. Unwise: Who are these freaks!?!?!

PWT: … you should know it’s fairly complex:

There is a formula and a calculator for YTM in the midst of a great website. 

There’s quite a bit left to know before actually investing in bonds.

Duration, modified duration, and convexity are all characteristics of bonds which we will leave for a later post before we get too far into the weeds.

Doesn’t it feel like a long lecture day in med school just let out and even the professors took pity on you…and themselves?

Whew.

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

Talk to you soon.

Asset Class IIIA: BONDS

Never forget these two axioms:

 

Money frees us, but its pursuit may enslave us.

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

 

Asset Class IIIA

 

Bonds

James Bonds…

Sorry, I couldn’t resist.

What exactly are bonds?

Your whole life is based on being a debtor—college loans, med school loans, car loans, home loans, etc., etc.

For once in your life—and likely for the first time—you can be the lender (i.e., the creditor).

By far the most common types of bonds are either corporate or municipal (usually cities or states, but obviously the federal government issues bonds as well).

This is how it works.

A bond is a simply a security of debt—an IOU—where the one issuing the bond not only owes the value of the bond to the person (or institution/mutual fund, etc.) who bought the bond, but also some interest that is agreed upon.

Congrats! You’re the bank…for once.

First some terminology…

Creditor: the person who bought the bond AKA the bond holder AKA the lender

Debtor: the issuer of the bond AKA the borrower

Face Value or Par Value: the original value of the bond alone AKA the principal

Yield or Coupon: the interest that the issuer of the bond/the borrower owes to the bond holder (not like 25 cents off Little Debbie’s coupons)

Default Risk: the likelihood that the debt won’t be paid back to the bond holder

Default risk influences yield/coupon. The higher the default risk (i.e., the more likely the bond issuer/debtor cannot pay back the creditor/bond holder/lender (you)—i.e., the more risky the investment), the higher the yield (interest) will likely be to attract people to buy such bonds. The lower the default risk, the lower the coupon/yield.

(In the good old days [for some of you that’s the 1960′s; for others, that’s sadly the 1990’s], each bond was represented by a physical certificate where the paper document had actual coupons that were cut out for which interest was paid.)

Not all bonds have coupons. These so-called “zero coupon bonds” are bought at a discount and then redeemed at a known higher value on their maturity date (see below for this terminology explanation).

Bonds allow companies or even governments to borrow millions (or hundreds of millions) for long-term expansion or research and development on the corporate side and current projects (usually listed as exactly which construction project for example) on the government side.

The amount of money needed for such projects is usually way beyond what a bank would ever lend and would also make the bank (even the few that would be big enough and brave enough to lend such a large amount of money) put such stringent requirements on the borrowers that it wouldn’t be feasible for the borrower to accept such terms.

As a stock holder, you own (probably a tiny piece) a part of that company. When you’re a holder of a corporate bond, you’re a creditor/lender to that company including all the shareholders. (If you owe both shares and bonds of and from the same company, in a sense then you owe yourself money…and interest.)

News flash: Bond holders take priority over shareholders.

In other words, if a company is going bankrupt, bond holders are paid before shareholders.

So if you think you’re a big deal hot shot because you own stocks…you’re not.

Also, bonds have a defined term AKA maturity after which the total payout (value of the bond originally AKA the principal plus all the interest owed) is given to the bond holder. (There are securities known as irredeemable bonds which is known as a perpetuity—i.e., a bond with no maturity.)

Interest is usually payable at fixed intervals (annual, semiannual, or quarterly; less often monthly).

Bonds are known as fixed income securities since the lender can accurately predict how much money he or she will make by a fixed time (i.e., the maturity date).

Another feature of bonds are their negotiability (not true of all bonds—the issuer will tell you if it’s not) meaning that the ownership of the bond can be bought and sold on the secondary market.

Dr. Unwise: Uh…what now?

Dr. Scared: This is it! This is how they screw you!! Money under the mattress is the only way to go!

PWT: Steady, guys…and settle down.

Once your bond is stamped (i.e., the physical certificate used to gets its stamp of ownership), you can sell it for a nice tidy little profit if it’s desirable enough among those seeking bonds, sometimes even years after the bond was originally issued.

Buying it from the issuer is done on what is known as the primary bond market.

Buying bonds from bond holders is done on what is known as the secondary market.

Here’s how bonds work.

Imagine you buy a $10,000 bond with a 5% coupon (or yield) with a ten year maturity date.

You’d get $500 a year as the bond holder. How that is paid depends on the issuer, but corporate bonds typically pay semiannually.

You get $500/year for ten years or $5,000 for the entire decade.

Then, you get back your principal—$10,000—on the maturity date ten years after you bought the bond.

So, all told, you get $15,000 total (over ten years) for buying a bond for $10,000 a decade ago—just like a bank.

Now you can see how banks make their money. 

So, you got a 50% return on your money over ten years. And it was as safe as any security.

Pretty great right?

Yeah…maybe.

Dr. Scared: See! See!! This is it! This is the path to true wealth!! It’s the only way to go!!

Dr. Know It All: How the hell do we shut this idiot up?

PWT: Fellas, calm down. And Dr. KIA, I know it’s hard, but stop being such a jerk. 

Anyway…

Depending on when your bond is being held/its maturity date is, you may do well and better than the stock market. But usually, bonds perform worse than the broad stock market over time generally speaking.

Don’t get me wrong. 50% return over a decade with no effort and not worrying about the gyrations of the market over that ten years is pretty grand.

Only you (and your spouse) know what returns you want, how much risk you’re willing to take, and how easily you sleep with what you’ve invested in and where your money is. (Much more on this in a later post.)

But, realize this, with few exceptions, you are trading solid returns for peace of mind.

Bonds=Securities with security.

Also, realize this:

This example only highlights the bond with a fixed interest rate (the majority) whereas a sizable number of bonds have variable interest rates where they can fluctuate as often as daily.

Back to our example though:

If you had the above bond (50% return over a decade), then you would have come out way ahead from 2001-2010* (S&P 500 total return with dividends: 11.971% or 1.147%/year for the decade) compared to the stock market.

(*January 2001-December 2010)

However, if you had the same above bond again (50% return over a decade), then you would have come out way behind from 2008-2017* (S&P 500 total return with dividends: 136.909% or 9.087%/year for the decade) compared to the stock market.

(*January 2008-December 2017)

(On purpose, I didn’t index this to inflation. Also, I didn’t take fees out of the stock investor’s return because the fee depends on how you invested in the stock market—by yourself, financial advisor, mutual fund, ETF, etc. But, if you invested in the broad stock market by a low fee mutual fund like Vanguard, the expense ratio [remember that?] ranges from 0.04%-0.14% [i.e., $4 charge for every $10,000 invested-$14 charge for every $10,000 invested]. So, in this example, the dent fees would make is quite low though I never want to discount fees or say they are negligible.)

The biggest problem with bonds is the generally low return you get from them. Five percent is great if you can get it, but you’re often not likely to do so with bonds.

The average yield on corporate bonds is 3.83% as of December 2017.

The average yield on municipal bonds is hovering in the 3.6-3.65% range as of December 2017.

And, finally, the US Treasury bonds, the safest and worst paying of them all, is ranging from 1.29% (1 month) to 2.81% (30 years) depending on the maturity dates (noted in parentheses). (These rates are as of January 2, 2018. Believe it or not, these rates fluctuate daily.)

Now factor in these possibly (likely) much lower returns and bonds clearly take a backseat to stocks and funds, especially if the latter two are kept in a low fee environment.

Investing…not easy stuff, huh?

Moody’s       S&P/ Fitch        Grade                        Risk 

Aaa                  AAA               Investment             Highest Quality

Aa                     AA                 Investment             High Quality

A                       A                    Investment             Strong

Baa                BBB                Investment             Medium Grade

Ba, B              BB, B                Junk                        Speculative

Caa/Ca/C      CCC/CC/C       Junk                        Highly Speculative

C                        D                      Junk                         In Default

 

Dr. Unwise: What in the name of all that is holy is this abomination?

 

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

 

PWT: This is a bond rating table. 

 

For corporate bonds, there is a standardized bond rating system, based on the analysis of the three major US credit rating agencies (Moody’s, Standard and Poor’s (Hi again!), and Fitch Ratings) to help potential bond buyers determine a company’s default risk. This is essentially the company’s credit rating. Like the letters in the above table, this is the report card for a company (more specifically, the credit rating of that company).

You may have heard of junk bonds. These are instruments of debt (that’s all bonds are, after all) that are put out by companies in financial trouble. The companies in question are banking on raising money to start a new venture, expand business, etc. that will right the ship for the company. These bonds have a high yield to attract potential investors. This is precisely the scenario in which bonds can be riskier than any other security, even stocks.

I think we’re at a good stopping point for now before we finish our discussion on bonds in the next post.

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

Talk to you soon.