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

Never forget these two axioms:

Money frees us, but its pursuit may enslave us.

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

Portfolio Building, Part VB

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

As a reminder, here is what was proposed:

25% S&P 500 Index Fund

25% Mid cap Fund

25% Small Cap Fund

25% Stocks

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheapest Index Funds

S&P 500 Index Funds:

Vanguard 500 Index Fund Investor Shares

Symbol:  VFINX

Net Expense Ratio:  0.14%

Minimum Initial Investment:  $3,000

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

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

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

Mid cap Index Funds:

Northern Mid Cap Index (NOMIX):

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

Vanguard Mid Cap Index (VIMSX):

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

Small Cap Index Funds:

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

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

Vanguard Russell 2000 ETF (VTWO):

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

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

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

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

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

iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM):

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

Northern Small Cap Index (NSIDX):

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

Schwab Small Cap Index (SWSSX):

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

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

International Stock Index Funds:

Vanguard Total International Stock Index (VGTSX):

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

Schwab International Index Fund (SWISX):

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

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

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

A Quick review:

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

Large caps>$10 billion

Mid caps=$2 billion-$10 billion

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

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

Nano caps<$50 million

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

And just forget the tracking of nano caps.

Micro Cap Index Funds:

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

Bond Index Funds*:

Vanguard Total Bond Index (VBMFX):

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

Northern Bond Index (NOBOX):

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

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

Blech!

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

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

Well, that should about do it for this post.

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

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

Until next time…

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…

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…

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.