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…

Building Towards Your Magic Number Brick by Brick

Sorry everyone, between conference week and family commitments (some expected, some…less expected),  I haven’t posted at all in the past 2-3 weeks.

My apologies for that.

I hope you can forgive me

Anyway…here we go…once again…

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

As we continue moving forward, we will eventually explore how to evaluate individual stocks and funds which suit your needs/fit your goals.

First, however, we will think larger and discuss how an entire portfolio would/should be constructed before detailing its individual components.

A key element—possibly THE key element—of your investment portfolio is knowing what your goals are. How much money do you want/need and by what time do you want/need it coupled with what your risk tolerance will allow for. Unfortunately, sometimes, these factors are contrary to one another and thus require calibration of one of these three variables: money, time, or risk tolerance.

You cannot reliably construct an investment portfolio until you answer these questions frankly and honestly.

In other words, your portfolio is built from starting at the end and then working backwards to the present day.

If you’re not thinking of it that way, you’re doing this all wrong.    

If you have a financial advisor, he or she should be sitting you and/or your family down to understand your income level, how big your family is, how big it might become, what your hopes and goals are, do you hope for an extra car or a vacation home or any other luxury item, etc. And once that initial interview is done, it needs updated—ideally yearly and on a PRN basis if circumstances about your job, family, etc change significantly. If your financial advisor is not doing that, then you need another financial advisor.

Let’s assume that you’re married or will be with 1-3 children that will go to college which you will pay for (Oh, great), own one house without any second ones (vacation or otherwise), and no significant luxury items (boats, high end cars [Bentleys, Maseratis, not Mercedes or BMWs], etc).The last assumption to be made (dangerous I know) is that you/your spouse have a moderately high risk tolerance (ie, willing to take short term losses for better long term gains in your younger days and middle age, but then increasingly conservative as you get older/closer to retirement).  

This profile would put you and/or family in the vast majority of people saving for retirement. (Obviously, the more different your profile is, the more impact it may have on your investment style and portfolio.)

So, let’s get started with the standard portfolio for the “average” person/family.

There’s a rule of thumb floating around out there on how you should be adjusting your portfolio over time as you age.

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

The remainder is supposed to be in bonds.

SR: Here we go with the math again…

So, even at age 50, you’d have 60% of your portfolio in stocks with 40% of your portfolio in bonds.

SR: This kid is pretty quick with the math!

And, then, assuming (there’s that word again) this portfolio will continue to morph with advancing age to the point where at age 70 there will still be 40% stocks/funds, Some would argue that it’s too aggressive at such an age. The counterargument is that it balances out a too conservative approach in your 40’s-60’s ( at least for some like myself, but as I have stated before I am an aggressive investor with a very high risk tolerance which is not at all advisable for everyone and shouldn’t be followed as a template) and also ensures some good ongoing returns as you age since you really don’t know how long your retirement nest egg will need to last even starting at age 70.

A piece of advice:

Make sure your money last between 90-95 years old. If it lasts that long, then you’re set. If you…gulp…die before your money runs out (AKA the Dream scenario), then you can set up that the remaining money passes on to your children, grandchildren, or even favorite charity—or some combination thereof. You won’t regret it; you will have regrets if you do run out of money. Living off your kids for basics like food and shelter in your advanced age is not a good look and will only cause conflict (if not hell on Earth) for your…and especially your spouse…which is far worse than for you.

BACK TO THE PORTFOLIO…

There will be costs to you re-calibrating your investment portfolio yearly in terms of capital gains (hopefully!) especially, so reconfiguring it only every five-ten years makes far more sense than it does to do it annually. Of course, it may not involve selling one security to buy another, but rather re-allocating the proportion of new purchases to tilt your portfolio the way it is supposed to go. If you’re really lucky, this may be difficult if your stocks/funds with dividends are accumulating value so quickly or so highly that you will have a higher proportion of stocks/funds that you intended to have.

As my grandfather used to say, this is a first class problem.

If you have this all mapped out with your financial advisor, then it will be done for you in what should be the most tax efficient way possible. But, please, please, whatever you do—don’t put it into auto pilot. You need to meet with your financial advisor AT LEAST yearly—ideally, quarterly—to review how your portfolio is doing and that the plan you set forth years (decades?) ago still makes sense.

Another option is Target Date Funds.

It’s a fund that has a mix of stocks, mutual funds, and bonds that will go from little bonds to much bonds with stocks/funds decreasing in parallel. There is a year in the title of the fund that should signal to you as an investor that the stated year (Vanguard Target Retirement 2045 for example) is the year you are retiring. All the work and re-calibration is done for you for a small (hopefully) expense ratio.

Target date funds definitely underperform the S&P 500, but they should given that they have some bonds in them (as well as funds with their own expense ratios that can drag performance as well). That’s the whole point. Unspectacular, but solid is the goal with target date funds here. These funds are supposed to bring solid returns over decades to give you a comfortable retirement.

Baseball analogy for target date funds: Singles and doubles, not home runs (which will always inevitably bring about a higher strikeout rate with it as well)

If you want higher returns than say 6.8% over the past decade, (don’t forget subtracting the expense ratio from the returns over that past decade for all of you who clicked on the link and said, this loser doesn’t know what’s up and underestimated returns) then you’ll have to go a different route…or…a hybrid method.

But, that’s a different story for a different 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…

The Invisible Thief

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.

Inflation:The Invisible Thief

As you should know by now (and shame on you if don’t), I always emphasize to understand your actual returns, you must look at how much hits your bank account after fees are paid off and all taxes are paid.

But that actually leaves something out which robs you of your wealth.

Inflation.

You don’t see it, hear it, or even feel it necessarily. What you have left in t

But it’s always there, gnawing away at your savings.

And not only are you subject to it, but you have absolutely no control over it.

Swell, huh?

As you may recall, the average inflation rate for over a century in the US is 3.22%. Thus, the way you’re affected by inflation (generally speaking) is not significant in the short term given how low the rate of inflation is. However, when the time frame in question is over decades, inflation can and will be significant in terms of your purchasing power.

It will clearly impact your retirement by the time—decades later—you leave your job permanently and can no longer contribute to your savings. In other words, what you have at that point is what you have left…for the the rest of your life…regardless of how much or how little it can buy you moving forward.

Scary, huh?

Realize that inflation doesn’t literally take money out of your pockets. It just makes everything more expensive when attempting to buy things. An inflation rate of 3.22% menas simply this: Something that costs you $100 in 2017 will cost you $103.22 in 2018. Now, that’s only in theory as some things will cost much more than just inflation alone (higher education anyone?), will cost the same as a company may worry that an increase in cost will cost sales of their product will plummet, or will even cost less (radical concept huh?) as technology usually costs less over time and defies easy definition/categorization making it even harder to understand what it should cost (eg, think of what your smart phone can do now as opposed to what it did even five or ten years ago).

But, generally speaking, inflation will make many things, especially items of daily living, expensive over time.

To get an idea of how much your money is worth today, there’s a slick inflation calculator (which also has some great information illuminating aspects of inflation and how to think of it) that you can use to see where you stand. It’s not the only one however. (If you clicked on the link, you’re on a terrific site that has many calculators—both financial and for many other areas of life.)

You can’t do anything about inflation as I stated before.

So why worry about it? You don’t have to, but keep this in mind…

If you ignore inflation altogether, you’re doing it at your own peril. You have to realize what it is doing to your savings since your entire Magic Number is based on what it can provide for you and your family. It’d be a damn shame if you find out that number is no longer Magic because your purchasing power isn’t what you thought it would be.

So what do you about all this knowing you can’t influence the inflation rate whatsoever?

You need to factor this into your calculations of three variables: because with inflation, as Time increases in length, then Money has to increase in amount which may then have to alter Risk Tolerance to at least a certain extent to allow for greater returns over the decades from your first year as an attending to the year you finally retire. And, if you cannot comfortably alter your risk tolerance, you either have to save more or work longer…or, worse, change your Magic Number…or, even worse yet, change what you desire upon retirement.

That’s why you want to keep inflation in mind as it should definitely factor into your retirement planning.  

If it’s not in your calculations, you may be horribly surprised at the end of your career.    

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…

 

Taxes Part III AKA The Lazy Man’s Post

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.

This is one of the ways to think about how the federal tax system works.

There’s plenty of ways to think about it, but I thought this was rather clever illustration of how federal taxes are paid and the rhetoric often employed after federal income tax cuts are proposed.

Believe it or not, unlike most of my long-winded posts, that’s it for today!

Go out there and enjoy your life!

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…

As Constant As Death: Taxes Part II (Taxes on Investments)

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.

Last time, we reviewed the basics of the federal income tax system and its latest changes. This post will detail the basics of how investments are taxed.

As noted previously, the recent tax reform bill that was passed in late 2017 changed federal income taxes significantly. One thing that didn’t change however 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, but 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 (Net Investment Income Tax also called the Obamacare surtax among many other things) is still applied to all dividends based on your modified adjusted gross income of $250,000 for married joint filers or $200,000 for single (or all other) filers.

As of 2013, the dividend tax had been 15% (or 20% for you all rich fat cats that light your fancy cigars with $100 bills and were 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) except for the sad residents of the great states of Tennessee and New Hampshire whose states tax dividends (but not income).

Thankfully, for the sake of convenience (if nothing else), capital gains (selling a security like a stock or mutual fund for more than you bought it for) is taxed at the exact same levels as dividends are (see above) except for one major subtraction.

There is no NIIT levied against your capital gains.

So, if you’re selling stocks and/or funds for a gain, your profits alone (not the original amount invested) 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 what is known as “ordinary income”.

Long term capital gains, however, are taxed far below what the taxes would be for short-term capital gains given the income levels for the average physician. Therefore, hold on to those stocks/funds as best as you can for at least 366 days. It’ll be worth your while. (This definitely should change your thinking on day trading as all those profits are being taxed at a much higher rate [most probably] than if it had been held. As will be discussed in a later post, you should only consider your gains after all the taxes and fees have been paid out. Therefore, you should ALWAYS  [rare in medicine, even rarer in life that we can use this word, so ALWAYS [see what I did there?] pay attention when you it is used] pick the most tax efficient investing route possible.)    

Just to be clear…

Please understand that only the profits are taxed at the above rates, not the entire amount of proceeds. (For example, if you put $30,000 into a fund [ Whoa there big spender!] and then sell it at $50,000 five years later, then you will be taxed on the $20,000 profit, not all $50,000.)  

Realize that there are no local or state taxes on dividends. There are no local taxes on capital gains, but there are state taxes on any capital gain.

There’s entire professions, seminars, books, and the like designed for all of this, so we will revisit this from time to time, but never be even close to being comprehensive. The more complex your taxes are/become, the more you’ll need an outstanding tax professional.

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…

 

Taxes: The Greedy Hand

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.

INCOME TAXES

Benjamin Franklin, the indispensable American, was absolutely 1000% (my math may be off here by a little bit or a factor of ten [whichever is closer]) correct as per usual. Let’s avoid the topic we all like to avoid talking about both in our professional and personal lives and delve into the other topic we cannot dodge indefinitely.

First of all, and most importantly, the federal income tax rates changed with the recent massive tax reform law passed in December 2017(officially titled as The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 [TCJA]).

Below are the 2018 and then 2017 tax brackets in reverse chronological order.

2018 Income Tax Brackets In The Way We All Think Of Them

Rate Individuals Filing Jointly
10% Up to $9,525 Up to $19,050
12% $9,526-$38,700 $19,051- $77,400
22% 38,701-$82,500 $77,401-$165,000
24% $82,501-$157,500 $165,001-$315,000
32% $157,501- $200,000 $315,001-$400,000
35% $200,001-$500,000 $400,001-$600,000

37% Over $500,000

Over $600,000

 

2018 Tax Brackets In Greater Detail (ie, the way your income is actually taxed)

Rate Taxable Income Bracket Tax Owed
10% $0 to $9,325 10% of Taxable Income
15% $9,325 to $37,950 $932.50 plus 15% of the excess over $9,325
25% $37,950 to $91,900 $5,226.25 plus 25% of the excess over $37,950
28% $91,900 to $191,650 $18,713.75 plus 28% of the excess over $91,900
33% $191,650 to $416,700 $46,643.75 plus 33% of the excess over $191,650
35% $416,700 to $418,400 $120,910.25 plus 35% of the excess over $416,700
39.60% $418,400+ $121,505.25 plus 39.6% of the excess over $418,400

 

2017 Taxes in Greater Detail

Rate Taxable Income Bracket Tax Owed
10% $0 to $18,650 10% of taxable income
15% $18,650 to $75,900 $1,865 plus 15% of the excess over $18,650
25% $75,900 to $153,100 $10,452.50 plus 25% of the excess over $75,900
28% $153,100 to $233,350 $29,752.50 plus 28% of the excess over $153,100
33% $233,350 to $416,700 $52,222.50 plus 33% of the excess over $233,350
35% $416,700 to $470,700 $112,728 plus 35% of the excess over $416,700
39.60% $470,700+ $131,628 plus 39.6% of the excess over $470,700

 

All the above charts are from The Tax Foundation.

 

Deductions

The standard deduction (ie, what you get for just being alive as a federal taxpayer and using this amount rather than itemizing deductions) in 2018 will jump to $24,000. For single filers, it jumped from $6,500 in 2017 to $12,000 now.

The child tax credit currently was at $1,000 and started to phase out at $110,000 in income for couples and $75,000 in income for single people or married, but separate filers (more on them later). Moving forward, this credit doubled to $2,000, $1,400 of which is a refundable tax credit. Furthermore, it only starts phasing out at $400,000 in income for couples and $200,000 for singles.

State and local taxes can still be deducted from your federal taxes, but they are now capped at $10,000 when it used to be unlimited, but just dependent on how much you paid in state and local taxes.This was the so-called SALT (State And Local Taxes) deduction that was being so hotly debated as the tax reform bill wound its way through Congress.

Interest on mortgages for primary and secondary homes (ie, the proverbial vacation home) is still deductible. The limit, however, has come down from loans up  to $1 million to loans up to $750,000. (Remember that this deduction is just the interest on the home loan, not the entire mortgage.)

Medical expenses in 2017 and 2018 are deductible if they exceed 7.5% of your income (down from 10%).

The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)

The AMT, created in the 1960s, was designed to prevent high-income taxpayers from avoiding the individual income tax. Unfortunately for these individuals or families, the AMT requires high-income taxpayers to calculate their tax bill twice: once under the ordinary income tax system (the one we all fear and loathe) and again under the AMT. (Talk about your invisible taxes.) Then, you are required  to pay the higher of the two.

Ouch.

The AMT uses a different definition of what is taxable income called Alternative Minimum Taxable Income (AMTI).

SR: It’s the government. Of course, it does…

A source of major consternation and even bitterness has been that occasionally in the past, it has nabbed middle-income (and even more rarely low-income) taxpayers forcing them to pay more than they should have by all rights.

To prevent this problem, taxpayers are allowed to exempt a significant amount of their income from AMTI. However, this exemption phases out for high-income taxpayers (depending on what your definition of high income is).

Dr. Know It All: $40 million a year!!

PWT: Uh, yeah…sure…OK….Anyway…

The AMT is at two similar rates: 26 percent and 28 percent.

The 26% AMT rate for 2018 has the exemption expire at $70,300 for singles and $109,400 for married couples that are filing jointly.

In 2018, the 28 percent AMT rate applies to excess AMTI of $95,750 for singles and $191,500 for all married joint filers.

Last thing of note:

If you’re wondering why a married couple would file separately (which is rather rare), it’s usually a couple making about the same amount of each money yearly. In this scenario, depending on what state you live in, filing separately may save you and your spouse on your state taxes though it will likely cost you both more as a federal tax payer (no spousal tax breaks any longer). Therefore, the savings on state taxes for each of you have to exceed the federal tax hit you’re both taking. It’s a rare instance that this happens, but it does happen therefore make sure if you and your spouse are making roughly the same in any given year (or every year), your tax preparer should be checking which route makes sense for you as a couple. If not, FIRE THEM!!

Just kidding.

Check with them if they have done so…and, if not, have them do it for your 2017 taxes and make sure joint filing is the way to go for you. After all, you’re paying them. They really should have done that for you anyway without you prompting them to do so. My people do every year (and I’ve joint filed every year as a result armed with the knowledge and security of paying less) without me ever asking once.

Finally, one last thing…

The state you live in likely taxes you (there are seven total that have no state income taxes) in many ways (income, sales, property, alcohol, sin…yep, sadly, even something as American as sin is taxed…stupid moralists!) that are complex making state to state comparisons difficult for an individual and nearly impossible for a large mass of people with different homes, wants, and needs.

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…